2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of three lots of land (hereinafter referred to as “land owned by the Plaintiff”) such as Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun (hereinafter referred to as “E parcel number” when indicating the address), F, and G, and the Defendant is the owner of H land located adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s land”).

B. The government is established to supply water to each of the above lands between the Plaintiff-owned land and the Defendant-owned land (hereinafter “instant government administration”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 7 (including a branch number in the case of additional number), Eul’s statements and images as well as Eul’s evidence Nos. 8 and 12, the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings of the court of first instance

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not supply water to the Plaintiff’s land on the wind which damages the control of the instant case owned by the Plaintiff and caused damages as set forth in the following table, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the following 31870,000 won and damages for delay due to tort.

(1) In addition to the following damages, the Plaintiff claimed 13.5 million won at the market price of rice, which was not harvested on the land owned by the Plaintiff, and 2 million won at the farmland management expenses, in addition to the damages under the first instance court. However, this part was excluded from the scope of the judgment in this court because no appeal was filed against this part. The amount of damages (unit: 0,000 won) by the sequence 1,1323 for travel expenses incurred in resolving the instant case 1,000, 554 consolation money in total, 3,187

B. On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that the Defendant destroyed the view of the instant case owned by the Plaintiff and did not supply water to the Plaintiff’s land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

Rather, Section B 7, 8, 8.