beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,00,000 and its amount on September 2, 2014.
Reasons
1. The following facts are recognized, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the evidence No. 1 (part), No. 10-1, No. 10-2, No. 11, and No. 14, the purport of the entire pleadings:
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the C Apartment 303, Gwangju Northern-gu, and the Defendant is the owner of 403, the upper floor.
B. Fungi occurring in part of a small embankment, wall surface, and mausa has been damaged, as water flows out due to the malfunction of a bathing room in the bathing room in the above 403 around October 2012.
C. At around July 24, 2014, since water flows out from the laundry sewage pipe, laundry No. 403, 303, fung has been generated in the main and small banks, wall parts, and the floor of the main bank was fung.
2.(a)
According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to each of the above water leakages.
The plaintiff asserts that even around April 201, 201, the number of pages 403 and 303 of the beeras set forth in the balcony suffered damages, such as fall, but it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the above damages were caused by leakages set forth in subparagraph 1-1 (s) and items 2 through 6, and subparagraph 13 of the balcony alone, and there is no other evidence.
B. Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence 1-3, it is recognized that a sum of KRW 2,500,000 (= KRW 600,000 replacement of the floor of Washington attached to 300,000 and 1,400,000 for cleaning KRW 80,000 for cleaning at the small amount of KRW 600,000 (= KRW 800,000 for the smallest amount of KRW 600,000)) is required for the above argument (the plaintiff asserts that at least 4,00,000,000 won including the repair cost of balcony and balcony, but there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the above argument only by itself, and there is no other evidence. However, since the defendant's damage was newly constructed at around October 194, 194, it is deemed that there was a limit on the defendant's liability for damages.
(c).