A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 6,620 square meters of land for a factory in ASEAN-si, and the Defendant is an owner of 16,594 square meters of land for a factory in ASEAN-si, an area adjacent to the said Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land is located in a zone higher than that owned by the Plaintiff.

나. 아산시는 2008. 8. 22. 이 사건 토지 지상에 공장신설승인을 하였는데, 이에 이 사건 토지 중 원고 소유 토지와 인접한 부분인 별지 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈎부분에 U형풀륨관(규격 #300) 295m의 배수로(이하 ‘이 사건 배수로’라고 한다)를 설치하는 내용의 피해방지계획이 포함되어 있다.

C. The part adjoining to the instant land among the land owned by the Plaintiff is installed with a drainage channel, but the instant land is not installed with a drainage channel different from the content of the approval for the establishment of a new factory.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-1 and 2-2, the appraisal result of the appraiser Korea Land and Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the overall purport of each of the evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) as seen earlier, although the instant land was located in a zone higher than that of the Plaintiff-owned land adjacent thereto, unlike the content of approval for the establishment of a new factory, it can be acknowledged that the land owned by the plaintiff was not installed with the instant drainage way on the boundary of the land owned by the plaintiff, and thus, excellent and earth and sand inflows into the land owned by the plaintiff, thereby hindering its use.

따라서 피고는 민법 제214조에 따라 원고에게 이 사건 토지 중 원고 소유 토지와 인접한 별지 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈎부분에 이 사건 배수로를 설치할 의무가 있다.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.