1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 22, 2018 to May 22, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of loss;

A. (i) On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff planted and cultivated the ginseng on March 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the ginseng of this case”) by leasing 987, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as “the ginseng of this case”) from C, and the said ginseng was contracted in 2014 with E, and was scheduled to be harvested for six years around October 2018.

Belgium The Defendant is the owner of the land F in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun located in the upper part of the ginseng field of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “F land”).

Consolidatedly, the Defendant removed the waterway leading to the flow from among the land of this case, and opened a waterway (50 cm x 50 cm) 14 meters away from the boundary of the land adjacent to the ginseng field of this case, and connected the water length to the future of the ginseng field of this case.

The existing waterway was connected to the existing waterway where the above land was connected to the same part on the same line.

Then, on July 16, 2017, the 238m concentration was 238m mnives in Magsan-gun, and there was damage to dry field including ginseng was destroyed in the part of the 6th m3m of 6th m20m in the ginseng dry field of this case, when the water was flown and the Jin soil was flown, and there was damage to dry field.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 10 through 16, Eul evidence No. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, when changing the existing waterway, should not cause damage to neighboring land, but has concentrated the quantity of the existing waterway as the ginseng field of this case on the wind of the Plaintiff without permission to remove the existing waterway, and the flood has increased.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages that the plaintiff suffered.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The Plaintiff, as a property damage, sold the ginseng to the Plaintiff on G and four lots, other than G in the Ga-si (hereinafter referred to as “G land”) at the 1 year prior to the depth of the ginseng of this case, for a property damage. However, the purchase price per mix of the ginseng was 47.