The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 105,869,926 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from July 15, 2008 to December 23, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendants' appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. The part ordering a payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff seeking additional payment is revoked. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 240,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from July 15, 2008 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendants

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

(a) Construction of the Plaintiff’s waste reclamation site and reclamation of drainage channels;

(1) On May 16, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) from the EMM Tech Co., Ltd. on May 16, 2005, the 161-

37 and 161-41 contracted the construction of a waste reclamation site on the land, and excavated the waste reclamation site in the shape of 72m wide, approximately 72m long, and approximately 20m deep in depth in the above land (hereinafter the above excavated part is called the instant reclamation site, and the land of 161-37, and 161-41m high in the above main valley is called the site for the instant reclamation site).

(2) Meanwhile, on the northwest side of the instant reclamation site, there was a drainage channel (the width and depth cannot be accurately known, but it was wide and deep rather than the drainage channel installed by the Plaintiff as follows) leading to the northwest from the northwest side of the instant reclamation site. While the Plaintiff buried approximately 30 meters north part of the said drainage, it made the Plaintiff’s passage of vehicles, such as heavy equipment, etc., on the lower part of the instant reclamation site, and installed a fume pipe (the inner diameter of which is about 0.8m in diameter excluding the total diameter of 1m and fume thickness, and the area of the said flow area is about 0.5m in diameter; hereinafter the same shall apply) with a diameter of about 1m in diameter.

B. The defendants' reclamation of drainage channels

On the other hand, on June 2006, the land (number omitted) owned by Defendant 2, which is adjacent to the north east of the site of the reclamation site of this case, is located as a drainage channel of the volume of the lower part 4.6m, upper part 7.95m, and upper part 0.75m (the lower part is adjacent to the upper part of the discharge pipe of this case; hereinafter the same shall apply) leading to the flow from the upper upper part of the road of this case to the north east. However, the Defendant Sung Forest Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Sung Forest Industry”) was a director and the owner of the land on the part of the Defendant 2, who is the owner of the land of this case, buried the existing drainage route of this case to the lower part of the land of this case and the boundary of the site of this case to the lower part of the land of this case, and the previous drainage to the lower part of the land of this case to 1 to 21m or less.

(c) occurrence of the primary accident around July 2006.

(1) On July 16, 2006, 169.5m, 17.32m of the same month, 21.5m of the same month, 26.24m of the same month, 105m of the same month, 27.5m of the same month, 168.5m of the same month, 168m of the same month, and 37.5m of the same month, around July 2006, the quantity flowing into the drainage route of the present case, and the quantity flowing into the drainage of the instant fume, was rapidly increased.

(2) The water level of the existing drainage channel of this case increased as the water level of the existing drainage channel of this case was considerably decreased compared to the existing drainage channel of this case at a level of 1 to 1.2 meters in width, 1 to 1.2 meters in depth, and as such, the water volume of the existing drainage channel of this case increased rapidly, resulting in a rapid increase in the water volume flowing as above.

(3) The water level near the fume pipe of this case also increased due to the rapid increase in the quantity of water flow as seen above, the water level near the fume pipe of this case was increased.

(4) According to the above increase in water level, there was an overall monthly accident near the existing drainage channel of this case and the discharge pipe of this case, and there was an accident where the water flows into the reclamation site of this case and the water is flooded (hereinafter “the primary accident of this case”).

(d) occurrence of the second accident around August 2007.

(1) On August 4, 2007, the volume of water flown to the present multiples around August 2007, according to the rain of 50.5m on August 4, 2007, 37m on the 7m of the same month, 8.72m on the 8m of the same month, 9m on the 14m of the same month, and 10.5m on the 14m of the same month.

(2) At the time of the instant first accident, the part on the part of the reclamation site of this case was lost, and the height of the drainage was lowered, and the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the Defendant’s land, the opposite side of the instant case, was set aside, and the width and depth of the intermediate part became less than one meter, respectively, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to repair and expand the existing drainage after the instant first accident, but did not comply with the Defendants). On August 207, 2007, the number of water flowing into the existing drainage of the instant case was increased, and there was a bottle in the middle part on the part on the part on the part on the part of the Defendant’s land, which was the opposite side of the instant case (i.e., the width and depth of the intermediate part on the instant drainage, and (ii) the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to repair and expand the drainage of the instant case.

(3) At the time of the instant first accident, the intermediate part of the current drainage of the instant case and the land located between the instant reclamation site (part of the land on the Defendant’s side is the site of the instant reclamation site) was lost in a considerable part in the process of flowing into the instant reclamation site, and the direction of the instant reclamation site was formed in the direction of the instant reclamation site (it was formed in the instant direction before the instant first accident). On August 2007, the water flown from the middle part of the existing drainage of the instant case into the instant reclamation site, and the neighboring soil loss was acceleratingd as the water flowed into the instant reclamation site depending on the downhill.

(4) Meanwhile, while constructing the instant reclamation site, the Plaintiff stuffed the drilling file in a depth of eight meters underground at the edge of the instant reclamation site, and the file installed in the vicinity of the instant existing drainage channel (e.g., the part on which the instant reclamation site begins, based on the decline in the middle part of the present drainage route and the part on which the instant reclamation site begins) was cut to a rectangular angle of 2.5 meters wide, and 1.2 meters high, and installed a fume for the collection and alteration of groundwater in the reclamation site and the collection of groundwater outside the reclamation site (location between the upper file and the intermediate part via the existing drainage of the instant case). (The design drawing was made to prevent an open space by installing a rectangular model pipe in the part on the cutting of the instant rectangular file in the shape of the above rectangular type, and the part on the cutting in the shape of the above rectangular type and the part on the collection of groundwater in the shape of the upper body and the part on the collection of groundwater in the shape of the upper body.)

(5) As above, the concentration of water flow and the loss of earth and sand caused by the concentration of water flow has caused the weakening of ground near the tit file, and eventually, the tit file was transferred to the reclamation site of this case, and the 35 to 45 meters out of the surface of the titch excavation site of this case (hereinafter “the second accident of this case”) occurred.

E. Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant 1 and 2 accidents

The costs of KRW 552,89,755 are required to repair the instant landfill that was damaged due to the instant 1 and 2 accidents as follows.

(1) Construction cost of KRW 502,636,141

(A) Direct construction cost of KRW 396,442,849

(1) 25,032,521 won for filling-up of earth and sand out and collapseed earth and sand.

(2) 160,231,919 won for dismantling and reestablishment of a drupture.

(3) 16,934,859 won in relation to the costs of dismantling, dismantling, and re-installationing.

(4) Expenses for the installation of a water museum: 7,512,072 won.

(5) 20,296,088 won for the drainage of water flowing into a rest file dismantling, reinstallationing, and reclaiming site.

(6) Materials expenses 166,435,390 won.

(B) Indirect construction cost of KRW 53,696,907

(C) General management costs 21,156,568

(d)Profit of 31,39,817

(2) Value-added tax of KRW 50,263,614

(3) Total 52,899,755 won

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry and video of Gap's evidence 1 through 5, 9, 11 through 18, 20, 21, Eul evidence 1 through 9, and 14 (including various numbers), Eul evidence 19, part of Eul evidence 11 and 12, non-party 1, 2, and 3 of the witness of the party trial, the result of on-site verification by the court of first instance, the result of the CD verification by the court of first instance, the result of the appraisal by the non-party 2 of the first instance trial, the results of the fact inquiry by the court of first instance and the Korea Industrial Safety Association of the court of first instance against non-party 2, the result of the fact inquiry by the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, due to the order of the defendant 2, the defendant Sung Forest Industry buried the existing drainage route of this case and installed the existing drainage route of this case where the area of the water is narrower than that of the existing drainage route of this case, and the occurrence of the first and second accidents of this case occurred, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above accidents.

B. Determination

Article 221(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The owner of land shall not interfere with the natural flow of water coming from adjoining land.” As seen earlier, the Defendants buried the existing drainage channel in the amount of 4.6m wide, 7.95m wide, 0.75m wide, 1.2m wide, 1.2m high, or 1.2m high, and installed the existing drainage channel in the amount of 1 to 1.2m wide, 1.2m high, or 1.2m high, thereby preventing part of the water naturally flowing from the existing drainage route of this case. This resulted in the occurrence of the primary accident of this case.

In addition, due to the first accident of this case, the length and depth of the intermediate part of the existing drainage of this case have decreased more than that of the other part, so the Defendants could have anticipated the possibility of monthly flow in the narrow part as above, if the quantity flowing into the existing drainage of this case increases in the future. After the first accident of this case, the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to repair and expand the existing drainage of this case. Thus, the Defendants should have repaired the existing drainage of this case (Article 223 of the Civil Code provides that "if the land owner installs a structure for the purpose of reservoiring, draining, or drawing water, the other party may claim damages to the other party's land due to the destruction or abandonment of the structure or the removal of the structure, or if it is likely that the land owner would inflict damages on the other party's land, the other party may file a claim necessary for the repair, closure of the structure, or prevention of the second accident of this case, as seen earlier, Article 750 of the Civil Code and Article 750 of the Civil Code are jointly and severally liable for damages to the Plaintiff.

3. The defendants' assertion and judgment

A. The defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that since the Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant 1 and 2 accidents and the expansion of damages, the Defendants’ negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be paid to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) Limitation on liability for damages

Then, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant 1 and 2 accidents and the expansion of damages. In full view of the content and degree of negligence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the content and degree of the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the instant 1 and 2 accidents, and other circumstances revealed in the course of the pleadings, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability for damages to 30% of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant 1 and 2 accidents.

(A) Since the area of the water surface of the instant fume pipe is less than 0.5 square meters with the water surface of the instant fume pipe, there was a significant decrease in the drainage capacity compared to the existing drainage channel, the Plaintiff failed to remove the water surface, despite the fact that it was not affected by the drainage, and the Plaintiff’s negligence was one of the causes of the instant primary accident.

(B) As seen earlier, the instant primary accident led to the formation of the direction of the instant reclamation site in the middle part of the existing drainage channel. As such, the Plaintiff could have anticipated that the water would be concentratedly flow into the instant reclamation site depending on the downflow route in the event of the occurrence of another month from the existing drainage channel of the instant case. As such, the Plaintiff, as a result, should have taken measures, such as raising the lost part of earth and sand into the middle part of the instant reclamation site as before the first accident. However, the Plaintiff did not take such measures, but the Plaintiff’s negligence led to one of the causes of the instant secondary accident.

(C) The fact that the Plaintiff cut off the set file box installed in the vicinity of the intermediate part of the instant intermediate part in a rectangular form, and installed a collection connection pipe in the open space and constructed it with a fume in the original form different from the design drawing. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s negligence was one of the causes of the instant secondary accident.

(2) Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to the defendants jointly and severally with the plaintiff KRW 165,869,926 (=52,89,755 won x 30% x less than won) and KRW 60,00,00, which are the parts cited in the judgment of the court of first instance among them, as requested by the plaintiff, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 15, 2008 when the duplicate of the application form for extension of the claim of this case was served on the defendants, to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendants' obligation to compensate for losses until October 31, 2008, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the next day to the date of the full payment, until the date of the full payment, 105,869,926 won per annum from the judgment of the court of first instance to the date of the full payment; 20% per annum from the judgment of the court of second instance to the date of second instance.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since part of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which differs from this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted and this part is revoked and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount additionally recognized in the trial. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendants' appeal are dismissed, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)