2. The plaintiff's remainder.

2. Claim against Defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5: Judgment of deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act) rendered by means of service by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. In order to ensure the effective enforcement of the judgment ordering an incidental act obligation, even if the enforcement title is established in view of the time of the closing of argument in the judgment procedure, it is apparent that the obligor is not likely to arbitrarily perform his/her obligation, and in such judgment procedure where the obligor is given an opportunity to sufficiently present the validity of the decision ordering the obligor to make an indirect compulsory performance, and where the amount of reasonable compensation ordered under Article 261 of the Civil Execution Act can be calculated in the said judgment procedure, an indirect compulsory performance order may be issued in cases where the obligor fails to perform his/her obligation in the future.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da50367 Decided November 28, 2013). However, even if the Plaintiff’s water-prevention obligation claimed as the claim in this case is deemed as the incidental act’s obligation, in light of the Defendants’ attitude as to the Plaintiff’s claim, it is difficult to deem that it is evident that the Defendants had no possibility to perform their obligation at will even if the enforcement title is established, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for indirect compulsory performance cannot be accepted.