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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, around August 2013, the Defendant filled up land B (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) at permanent residence owned by the Defendant, and planted trees, the ground of which was 70 cm higher than C’s land at permanent residence adjacent to the Defendant’s land, and accordingly, the Plaintiff incurred damage that was damaged by the wall installed on the ground of the above C (hereinafter “the wall of this case”) and paid KRW 5,531,00 as the cost of restoring the wall, so the Defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a tort or a possessor of the structure.

B. 1) In addition, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Defendant directly filled up or planted trees on the Defendant’s land. Moreover, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the images of evidence Nos. 6 and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4-1, 3, and 5 of evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1, 4-1, 3, and 5 were damaged due to the filling-up or planting of the Defendant’s land, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine. 2) The defect of installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act is in a state in which the structure itself fails to meet the safety ordinarily required in accordance with its purpose, and the burden of proof as to the existence of the defect exists to the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da348, Aug. 24, 1982; 2014; 2014Da251615, Oct. 301, etc.