수로변경 및 원상복구 등
1. The plaintiff (Appointed) and the selector's primary claims and preliminary claims are all dismissed;
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
A. (1) On December 6, 2004, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the real estate list on attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”). On August 29, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 of the land listed in paragraph (2) of the real estate list on attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”). The appointed Party completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 of the instant land on July 10, 2006.
(2) On October 29, 198, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the land listed in [Attachment 1] No. 3 (hereinafter “the State-owned land of this case”) on October 29, 198. The State-owned land of this case is connected to the land of this case No. 2.
B. The instant flowing water was originally flowing on the ground of the State-owned land (hereinafter “instant flowing water”). However, even before the Plaintiffs acquired the said ownership, naturally changed its flowing route, the instant flowing water is currently flowing through the passage of the land Nos. 1 and 2 [Attachment 2.(a), (b), and (hereinafter “the instant ditch site”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. The running water of this case, which is the primary cause of claim, was being flowed according to the original state-owned land of this case, but was flowed into the ditch site at any time after flood was flooded.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs were unable to occupy and use the instant site after acquiring ownership on the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case. On the other hand, the Defendant changed the instant flowing water to the ditch site, thereby gaining profits equivalent to rents by leasing the part of the State-owned land of this case where the instant flowing water was flowed according to the flow.
Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiffs.