[구거제거][집10(2)민,107]
The owner of next land is obliged to take water to flow by particularly processing the land.
Since the flow of water from a high water place is natural law, the owner of the low area is obligated to keep natural persons from flow of water from the high land. However, the owner of the next land is not obliged to take the water only when he/she flows by processing in particular on the land.
Articles 221 and 226 of the Civil Act
Madembane
Kim Tae-ju and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-Gyeong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 4293No855 delivered on July 6, 1961
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
The grounds of appeal by the defendants' attorney are as follows.
The Grounds of Appeal
(1) It is natural that the Defendants flow to the lower place of water from the point of view of the first, to the lower place of water. As such, the owners of the land in the lower place are obliged to keep the natural flow of water from the high land, or the owners of the land adjacent thereto from the point of view that they flow to the lower place of view, there is no obligation to take water upon the Plaintiff’s surface. Accordingly, according to the facts duly established by the lower court, the Defendants’ ownership of the Defendant Kim-ju’s farmland is adjacent to the south of the farmland at the same time, and the Defendant Kim-ju’s farmland is adjacent to the Defendant Kim-ju’s farmland, and the flow of the water from the lower place of view to the lower point of view due to the lower point of view to prevent any damage to the Plaintiff’s own land from flowing to the lower point of view due to the Defendant Kim-ju’s new establishment of the lower court’s new installation of the water surface to the lower point of view, and there is no violation of law by the Defendants from the lower court’s new installation of the water surface to the lower point of view.
(2) On the second ground of the judgment, according to the order of the original judgment, the lower court ordered the Defendants’ omission because the water leading to the ditch connecting the walone point among the attached drawings in the original judgment was determined as the starting point, the walone of the attached drawings, and the water leading to the ditch connecting the walth point in the Plaintiff’s argument, and the execution method of the judgment ordering such omission is possible in accordance with Article 692 of the Civil Procedure Act and the latter part of Article 389(2) and Article 389(3) of the Civil Act. Thus, it is not reasonable to hold that the execution method is not clear.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
Professor Jin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court of Korea