206 Ghana 77367 Damage (as such)

Jeonn 00

Jeju City 000 000 apartment 000 Dong 503

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Gangwon 00

Jeju City 000 000 apartment 000 603 Dong 603

Co., Ltd. 00

Seoul

Representative Director 000

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

June 19, 2007

July 10, 2007

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,950,000 won with 5% interest per annum from November 11, 2006 to July 10, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15.9 million won with 20% interest per annum from the service interest day of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of 000 apartment units 00 000 500 dong 503 at Jeju, when the plaintiff constructed and sold this apartment units by the defendant auxiliary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "participating"), and the defendant is the owner of the above apartment units 00 dong 603.

B. Around May 2001, the Plaintiff purchased the above apartment, and entered about about 15 million won into a remodeling project on the ceiling and the wall, etc. Around July 2005, the Plaintiff requested cocoi and corrosion detection projects on his apartment house in the ceiling and the wall of his apartment house. As a result, on August 9, 2005, the Plaintiff confirmed that water leakage detection is being carried out in the apartment kitchen, which was located in the apartment kitchen, and the Defendant repaired the above apartment pipe on August 12, 2005.

C. However, even after the above repair, the Plaintiff demanded compensation to the Defendant, but did not reach an agreement on the scope of compensation due to differences in opinion on the scope of compensation, as the Plaintiff’s fung and smelling phenomenon occurred in the Plaintiff’s apartment paper, etc.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff: (a) requested 00, a man-made business operator, to perform the repair work for the above damaged portion from September 4, 2006 to October 2, 2006; and (b) the cost required for the construction work is 15.9 million won in total.

2. Determination:

A. Since the Plaintiff suffered losses, such as mycoa in a remote area due to leakage in an apartment owned by the Defendant, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant alleged that the above leakage damage was caused by the intervenor's defective construction, and that there was no error to the defendant. However, the owner of a structure is liable for compensating for the damage caused by the defect of the structure (see Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act) without limitation of negligence. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit without further review.

C. The defendant asserts that, once again, the damage caused by the above water leakage was insignificant to the extent that it will be recovered again. However, since the plaintiff extended construction to the unnecessary portion due to the deterioration, it is unreasonable to compensate for the total construction cost incurred by the plaintiff.

Where it is acknowledged that property damage has occurred in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damage caused by a tort and it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in good faith, the court may determine the amount of damage which is the scope of proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties, the background leading up to the tort and the occurrence of property damage caused by the tort, the nature of the damage, and all the circumstances after the damage occurred, which are revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6951, 6968, Jun. 24, 2004).

On the other hand, the defendant's scope of compensation should be recognized by taking into account all the circumstances such as health stand, the plaintiff unilaterally performed repair work without any objective verification procedure to cause a dispute over the scope of repair work, the fact that the plaintiff used high-class materials more than the existing materials in certain materials, etc. even according to the witness's testimony, and the fact that the remuneration cost increased than ordinary cases due to an apartment relationship that has been implemented by the artificial park construction work in the past.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 79.50,00 won and the annual interest rate of 5% from November 11, 2006 to July 10, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no reason.

00