1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,207,200 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 26, 2016 to August 25, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “No. 402”). B. The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the owner D on December 2, 2014 with respect to the said C loan No. 502 (hereinafter “No. 502”) and is currently a lessee who moved in on January 2015 and is currently residing therein.

C. From August 20, 2016, from 402, water began in the ceiling of the laundry room, and thereafter, the occurrence of an accident involving electricity to share and to share electricity due to the occurrence of a considerable amount of water leakage in most of the houses.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant water”). D.

The causes of water leakage in this case were the problems of cooling pipes supplied to boiler 502, and the water leakage stopped around October 2, 2016.

(B) The Defendant’s ground for recognition is that the Defendant did not properly prevent the rooftop waterproof, thereby causing water leakage and water leakage damage to 402 as well as water leakage damage to 402 on the rooftop. Thus, the Defendant’s ground for recognition is that it does not constitute damage due to a mistake in preservation as referred to in Article 502, but does not accept the ground for recognition) / Each entry in subparagraphs A through 8 (including serial numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is the possessor of the structure, who is liable for damages incurred to the plaintiff due to the leakage of the water in this case.

(Article 758(1)(b) of the Civil Act.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following damages are recognized as follows with regard to property damages in the statement of Nos. 1 through 8.

1 First, the construction cost of KRW 16,220,00 is incurred to repair the above house.

However, as a result, the exchange value of 402 units is expected to increase more than before the occurrence of leakage of this case by newly performing artificial insemination construction, the part needs to be deducted.

It was newly constructed in 2003, and the Plaintiff has continuously resided after acquiring ownership at that time, and thereafter.