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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person residing in Ulsan Jung-gu Carryover (hereinafter “instant loan”) (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant is a person who resided in the instant loan E (hereinafter “E”) and was between directors around February 16, 2017.

B. From February 25, 2017 to March 7, 2017, where the Plaintiff’s residents located, the water leakage occurred from the inside of the bank (hereinafter “instant water leakage”). The cause of the water leakage lies in the outstanding pipes near the benda (hereinafter “instant excellent pipes”) preventing water from flowing out by foreign substances.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers for those with virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In general, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is a common part of an aggregate building. Of the excellent pipes of this case, it may be deemed as a part of the Defendant’s exclusive ownership. In addition, the excellent pipes of an aggregate building concurrently serve not only the purpose of transmitting rainwater, but also the purpose of discharging living wastewater, etc. discharged from laundry, etc. laund. Thus, the Defendant is responsible for managing the excellent pipes of this case. Thus, the Defendant is deemed as the occupant of the excellent pipes of this case. However, at the time of the instant water leakage, there was a defect in which water is not smoothly discharged due to the Defendant’s negligence in management, and the water leakage occurred due to the said defect. Accordingly, the Defendant, as the occupant of the excellent pipes of this case, who is a structure, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the water leakage of this case. Even if the Defendant did not bear the liability for damages as the occupant of a structure, the Defendant not only neglected the management of the excellent pipes of this case, but also neglected the boiler.