1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 28, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased a building of 98.94 square meters on the ground (a 1st floor, 1st floor, 1st floor, 65.79 square meters on the 1st floor, 1st floor, 65.79 square meters on the 1st floor, 1st floor, 2002 and completed the registration for transfer of ownership.

B. On November 7, 1994, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of inheritance with respect to the land of the Plaintiff D 1,640 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

C. A banking work was conducted on April 2013 on the Defendant’s land.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A. Around April 2013, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion increased the level of water discussed by the Defendant’s filling up a ridge between the arguments of the Defendant’s land. As a result, the ground of the instant building that is adjacent thereto was invaded, and there was a change in the surface and rupture on the wall, etc. of the building.

Therefore, the Plaintiff suffered property damage equivalent to the cost of the instant building repair due to the above banking operations, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages based on a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

B. In light of the appraiser E’s appraisal that the Defendant caused damage to the Plaintiff by filling up the Defendant’s land, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion was irrelevant to the increase in water level of the Defendant’s land, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion on the sole basis of the content certification (Evidence A4) unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff and sent to the Defendant, and of the precise safety diagnosis report (Evidence A5) privately appraised by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected without need to further examine.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is rejected as it is without merit.