1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 2,300,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 30, 2015 to April 6, 2016.

I. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) in this case, the Plaintiff claimed damages for total damages of KRW 73,197,322, such as the cost of water detection, consolation money, etc., on the part of the Defendant’s housing owned by the Plaintiff (Seoul Yangcheon-gu CBL 102) and the total damages of KRW 73,197,322, such as total damages, by asserting that, after completing the construction of replacement of boiler heating pipes on June 22, 2015, water leakage occurred due to the occurrence of water leakage from around March 2012 to around June 2015 from around February 22, 2015 to around February 22, 2015.

Ⅱ. Occurrence of liability for damages caused by water leakage; and

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence 3, 6-3, 7-9 (including each number), and Eul evidence 1.

A. The inside structure of the instant C lending and the original Defendant’s housing (1) is a multi-household of the first floor and the third floor above the ground (total eight households) of the instant C lending, and was approved for use on April 13, 192.

(2) The Plaintiff’s housing is located on the first floor 102, the second floor 202, the second floor 202, and the second floor below each other.

(3) The inside structure of the house is the same as the indication of the attached drawing, and the defendant's house is the same as the above-mentioned shape.

B. (1) On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with D on a deposit of KRW 60 million with respect to the Plaintiff’s housing, and D moved into the Plaintiff’s housing around January 31, 2015.

(2) However, following D’s board of directors, the Plaintiff asserted that water leakage occurred from February 2015, 2015, following D’s board of directors, and requested the Defendant to jointly conduct a water leakage inspection while attempting to have a telephone conversation with respect to water leakage. On the other hand, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a certificate of the content of demanding the Defendant to conduct a water leakage inspection and to prevent recurrence on three occasions from February 5, 2015 to February 26, 2015, but was not served on the Defendant.

(3) at the time.