1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The first instance court, the scope of adjudication, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against C, and rendered a judgment of accepting part of the claim against the Defendant.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning C in the judgment was separated and finalized as it was not appealed by both the Plaintiff and C. Since only the Defendant appealed against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance, the scope of judgment of this court is limited to the part against the Defendant in the judgment

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul Etel F-Gho Lake (hereinafter “Plaintiff Officetel”) where the office was located, and the Defendant is the owner of the above officetel H (hereinafter “Defendant Office”) and C is the lessee of the Defendant Officetel.

B. However, on January 13, 2018, the Plaintiff’s officetel’s interior of the heating apparatus inside the Defendant officetel (hereinafter “Slock”) was flooded on the following floors, where large quantities of water flows out from the fences and fences, due to the slocks of the heating apparatus inside the Defendant officetel (hereinafter “slock”).

(hereinafter “instant water accident”). C.

In the instant water leakage incident, the interior of the D Office located in the Plaintiff Office was flooded and the interior of the ceiling, walls, floors, etc. was conducted to repair it.

On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,000,000 for repair cost to “A,” which performed the said interior works at the request of D, a lessee.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the water leakage accident in this case occurred due to the removal of fences installed in the defendant's officetel and water flows out in large quantities. Thus, the defendant is the owner of the defendant's officetel, who is liable to compensate for damages caused by the defects in the preservation and management of the relevant structure.

Therefore, the defendant paid 25,00,000 won for the repair cost paid by the plaintiff due to the water leakage accident in this case and damages for delay.