[손해배상][집24(2)민,203;공1976.9.1.(543),9296]
Article 221 of the Civil Act provides that the purpose of the duty of acceptance and the contents of the right of reception and delivery pursuant to Article 226 of the Civil Act
The duty of acceptance under Article 221 of the Civil Act is reasonable to regard the case where the owner of a low land has the duty to cite it when he flows into a low place from the high place of water naturally, and the water naturally flows into a low place due to any cause, as the case where he has the right of communication construction to perform construction works necessary for such flow, or the case where water naturally flows into a low place of water and artificial water together with drainage pipes, it is reasonable to regard the case where he flows into a low place of water as the case of the right of drainage under Article 226 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the person having the right of communication shall choose the lowest place and method of damage for the low land, and if it is recognized that the owner of a low land causes damage, he shall compensate therefor.
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
The legal representative of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice
Seoul High Court Decision 74Na941 delivered on October 21, 1975
The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.
Article 221 of the Civil Act provides that the owner of the land at a lower time when water flows out of a naturally high place shall accept it, and if water naturally flows out at a lower time, the owner of the land has the right to communicate which may perform construction works necessary for its drainage, so this opinion is acknowledged by the court below, i.e., water used in the airfield which is an artificial water, and water used in the above airfield, which flows out through its drainage pipe in its explanation, cannot be seen as natural flowing water, so it cannot be seen as a natural flowing water, and therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff did not have any such obligation to take water in the original judgment as seen above, even after the second point of the appeal, it is reasonable to view the land at the time of the lower court’s decision as an unlawful point in view of the right to take water supply and drainage, and therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Defendant did not have any legal interest in the part of the lower court’s decision to the lower court’s decision to the extent that it did not have any legal interest in the land and drainage of the lower time.
Therefore, the first place of the appeal is without merit, and the second place of the appeal is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as stipulated in the second place of the appeal.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)
Justices Dra-ro shall have an obstacle to signing and sealing.