1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments to the 17th 17th 17th 17th son of the first instance judgment; (b) and (c) the part concerning “the occurrence of liability for damages” and “the occurrence of liability for damages of 2.

[Supplementary Parts]

C. The Defendant’s limitation on the Defendant’s liability for damages: (a) the following circumstances revealed through the aforementioned evidence and acknowledged facts; (b) there were frequent flood accidents caused by heavy rain at the point where I and H are located; (c) the flood pumps of this case were installed by civil petitions against flood accidents in 2011; and (d) the flood accident of this case appears to be the first flood accident after the installation of the drain pumps of this case; and (e) there were circumstances where the collection and alteration of the flood did not have been installed or the leakage of the drain pumps was insufficient in relation to the installation of the drain pumps of this case, but it is difficult to conclude that the flood accident of this case could have been avoided due to the installation of the drain pumps of this case and normal operation of the discharge pumps of this case; and (e) the Plaintiffs are also sufficiently required to make efforts to prevent or minimize the damage of this case; and (e) there are no evidence to deem that the flood accident of this case was the first flood accident after the installation of the discharge pumps of this case.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The plaintiff A1's argument that the plaintiff A1's assertion was not cultivated in the flood area of this case, and there is no damage. The witness M& and N testified cultivated by the plaintiffs. However, although the witness M& and N testified cultivated by the plaintiffs, the witness O stated that the plaintiff C's argument that the plaintiffs suffered damage upon the request of the plaintiffs was the stoma that the plaintiff cultivated.