Of the lawsuit in this case, the claim for the performance of water leakage prevention works shall be dismissed.

The defendant shall pay 4,030,000 won to the plaintiff and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner and the resident of the building listed in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “305”), and the Defendant is the owner of the building listed in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “405”).

B. On July 2013, around 305, water leakage occurred on the left upper part of the entrance of the inner entrance of the front door and the right upper part of the front door of the inner entrance of the front door, and on the left upper part of the entrance of the inner entrance of the toilet.

(hereinafter “the water leakage of this case”). The water leakage of Nos. 305 is connected with the walls and floors of toilets No. 405.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to immediately implement water leakage prevention works on September 2013, and sent a notice demanding the implementation of water leakage prevention works on December 9, 2013, but the Defendant argued against water leakage prevention workers who did not perform water leakage prevention works.

As the appraiser C conducted a water leakage test on October 6, 2014 by using a luminous color water in the toilet for the ward on October 405, 2014, it was found on October 22, 2012 that there was a shaking of a luminous color water carried out in a water leakage test on the upper side of the left side of the entrance of the inner entrance and the right side of the inner entrance of the entrance.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-1, Gap evidence 3-1-12, Gap evidence 4-2-8, Eul's testimony or video, Eul's on-site inspection result, appraiser C's appraisal result, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. In a civil suit pertaining to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the performance of the water leakage prevention project, the purport of the claim should be specified in detail so that its content and scope can be clearly identified. Whether an objection is specified is a matter to be examined ex officio. Thus, where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall ex officio order the correction, regardless of whether the defendant raises an objection, and shall dismiss the lawsuit if

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2904 Decided September 8, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da53785 Decided November 12, 2009