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 the owner of Busan Northern-gu C Apartment 11 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) No. 301 (hereinafter “301”) and the Defendant is the owner of the instant apartment No. 401 (hereinafter “401”).

B. Around March 22, 2013, water leakage occurred in the living room, ceiling, etc. under 301, and the Defendant requested a water leakage inspection to D, a specialized waterproof business entity, on June 18, 2013, and confirmed that water leakage was occurring in the toilet pipes under 401.

Accordingly, around June 2013, the Defendant carried out the waterproof work of 401 toilet pipes and toilet floor waterproof work via D (hereinafter “the primary construction”). At the Plaintiff’s request, around July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 800,000 to the Plaintiff with the cost of repairing and mooring the ceiling of 301-301. (c) On October 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that water leakage had occurred again from the cell ceiling of 301, etc., and the Defendant demanded repair of water leakage to the Defendant. After verifying that water leakage had occurred from the toilet floor of 401, the Defendant requested D, etc. from December 20, 2013 to December 23, 2013 to repair the toilet floor, wall, etc. of 401 (hereinafter “the second construction”).

The apartment of this case is deteriorated as a building completed in around 1994.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 1-2, 2-1 and 2, the testimony of the witness E at the trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. 301 due to the defect in the toilet No. 401, the Plaintiff owned by the Defendant and the apartment house No. 201 et al. of this case are "No. 201".

(2) The Defendant incurred water leakages on the living room, toilets, and the ceiling, wall, floor, etc. of the kitchen. Accordingly, the Plaintiff repaired the toilet of 301 at its own expense and replaced the board. Therefore, the Defendant incurred property damage to the Plaintiff by KRW 2760,00 (= KRW 450,000 for replacement of the toilet of KRW 2.1 million for replacement of the toilet of KRW 2.1 million for the toilet of KRW 2.5 million for replacement of the boiler of KRW 450,00 for the toilet of KRW 60,00 for KRW 150,00 for the hydrostatic pressure test.