1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the “E” of the third party judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “G”, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following additions. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the ground subsidence has not occurred since the sewage produced by the station at the time of the flood accident in this case flows out through external walls of the building, and that the flood accident in this case occurred due to the failure of 3-5 cm high, and therefore, the flood accident in this case occurred due to the reverse flow of public sewerage system. Since the plaintiff did not attend the appraisal process, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the appraisal result of the appraiser D in the first instance trial because there is a problem in the appraisal procedure.

According to the results of the fact-finding on D in the first instance court, the appraiser conducted the investigation on November 21, 2014 without attending the Plaintiff’s punishment and attending only the Defendant’s employees when an internal investigation is conducted on November 21, 2014. However, this is deemed to be a measure taken to ensure smooth progress of appraisal, such as preventing disturbance during the investigation. In addition, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion alone rejected the credibility of the appraisal result, in light of the fact that the operator of the instant entertainment drinking club was asked about the situation at the time of the acquisition of the instant entertainment drinking club and confirmed the leakage status as at the time of the appraisal, and that the Plaintiff participated in the first on-site investigation.

Meanwhile, according to the above appraisal results, if water is continuously leaked due to sewage pipes in the vicinity of the building, it is anticipated that the ground subsidence will occur, and the surrounding area of the flood accident of this case has not been verified that the ground subsidence seems to occur, and according to the witness I's testimony, the public sewage culvert managed by the defendant at the defendant's request on January 8, 2013.