1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the Seoul apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at KRW 19 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) from the Namwon-si, North Korea (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and paid the purchase price to the Defendant around that time.

B. On July 16, 2017, prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract on a regular basis with the Defendant’s consent, the Plaintiff occupied the instant apartment on July 16, 2017, but there was a damage to the ceiling, wall, floor, door, etc. due to water leakage in the instant apartment site.

C. On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff requested repair construction by notifying the Defendant of the fact that water leakage occurred, and the Defendant, who is the owner of the E-ho, the upper floor of the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as “E-ho apartment”), was the owner of the instant apartment. On July 24, 2017, the Defendant, who was the owner of the E-ho apartment (hereinafter referred to as “E-ho apartment”), requested a water leakage detection business operator F to perform a waterproof construction work on the outer wall, floor,

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff spent KRW 2,763,000 to the construction company around August 2017 in repairing the ceiling, wall surface, floor, door, etc. of the apartment that was damaged or modified due to the leakage of the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 through 7 evidence (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony of Gap's witness F of the first instance court, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable for damages to the plaintiff, since the water leakage in the apartment site of this case was caused by the water leakage in the apartment site of this case, which was owned by the defendant, and the river site was damaged, and the plaintiff suffered damages to pay the construction cost for the repair, and thus the defendant is liable for the damages to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant is not the apartment house owned by the defendant, but the water leakage of the apartment house of this case was generated by the water leakage of the apartment house of Gho Lake, so the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the cost of repair work.