1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of Busan Suwon-gu C apartment 1, 509 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned apartment”), and the Defendant is the owner of the same 809 apartment (hereinafter “Defendant-owned apartment”). On September 2013, the Plaintiff suffered water damage from water leakage in the sewage pipe of the apartment owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff spent KRW 2,329,000 in total, including wall crushing work expenses to grasp water sources to recover the damage.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 2,329,000 won and damages for delay.

2. According to the testimony of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, video of Gap evidence No. 2, and witness witness D of the first instance trial, the defendant accepted it as a result of water leakage in the pipe of the apartment owned by the defendant around September 2013, and the fact that water leakage damage has occurred to the apartment owned by the plaintiff around that time.

However, the following circumstances, which can be known by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the images of the evidence Nos. 3-1 to 3, i.e., ① since all of the apartment owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant are aged, the possibility of water leakage damage to the apartment owned by the Plaintiff cannot be ruled out due to any reason other than the pipe leakage of the apartment owned by the Defendant. ② The apartment owned by the Defendant is located on the third floor above the Plaintiff, and even if water leakage occurs, it is difficult to view that the apartment owned by the Plaintiff directly affects the apartment owned by the Plaintiff. ③ The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not show that water leakage damage has occurred to the owners of the apartment owned by the Plaintiff and other apartment owned by the Defendant. In light of the above circumstances, the fact of recognition alone cannot be concluded to have caused water leakage from the apartment owned by the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion.