The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are as follows: (a) the cause of damage caused by the plaintiff's main cause of this case has been affected by the depth of the water, (b) the damage caused by the plaintiff's main cause of this case (i) the installation or preservation of the structure has been affected by the depth of the water; (c) the specific condition of the victim's answer (iv) the amount of the damage caused by the infringement of the water flow system at the middle; and (d) the court below's determination that the damage occurred in the structure of the defendant's installation is against the rules of evidence that it is against the rules of evidence that the total liability of this case is against the rules of evidence that the damage occurred in the structure of the defendant's installation is against the rules of evidence, and the cause of the plaintiff's main claim can be recognized by the plaintiff's possession. The construction or preservation of the structure as referred to in Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act is not only the cause of damage caused by the installation or preservation of the structure, but also the act or joint construction of a third party.

Of the arguments in the grounds of appeal No. 2, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's damage cannot be predicted or negligent in the occurrence of the damage in this case is recognized as a claim for damages caused by the defendant's installation of a water system, as shown above, and therefore, the damage caused by the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure must be attributed to the owner of the structure's liability for damages without fault. Therefore, the court below's argument that the damage caused by the defect in the construction or preservation of a structure should not be reversed. However, since the defendant's assertion that the damage in this case was caused by the narrow construction of the bank owned by the plaintiff to the river was included at least by the victim's negligence in the occurrence of the damage in this case, the above argument constitutes a offset against negligence, as long as the damage in this case includes at least the victim's fault. However, the court below's failure to reverse the decision of the court below on the important issue affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the two Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leaps