손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and incidental appeal in Chuncheon are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case to the following two paragraphs, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant B and Defendant C are obligated to install a new drainage channel so that rainwater and soil generated from their own land do not cause damage to the Plaintiff’s land.
Nevertheless, Defendant B and Defendant C did not install drainage, and as a result, the damage to the land of this case due to the flood disaster of this case was greater.
Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant C are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the flood disaster of this case.
B. According to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the witness testimony and arguments, the entire purport of this case’s land and H and G land owned by the defendant C, and I and J land owned by the defendant C (hereinafter referred to as “the land owned by the defendant”), are adjacent to the land in this case’s case’s land, and the defendants’ land owned by the defendant is in the notification stand. At the time of the concentration of this case’s land, it is recognized that large amounts of rainwater and soil inflows into the land owned by the defendants at the time of the concentration of this case’s land.
However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged as follows, Eul's evidence Nos. 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 6, and Eul's testimony and pleading as a whole, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts of recognition alone are insufficient to establish that defendant Eul and defendant C have the obligation to install a new multiple channel on the land owned by the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(1) In light of the fact that Article 221(1) of the Civil Act provides that a landowner may not interfere with the natural flow of water coming from adjoining land, the land owner is generally informed.