All appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiffs are owners of 489m2 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs’ land”) in racing-si, and the Defendant is the owner of 678m2 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s land”).

The land of the plaintiffs and the land of the defendant are adjoining to the boundary of the stone axis, and the land of the plaintiffs is located in the lower part of the defendant's land, and the slope from the plaintiffs' land to the defendant's land is growing.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 18, 19 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and determination Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant owned the land in a higher zone than the Plaintiffs’ land, and therefore, they neglected to prevent soil erosion from being pushed down below the lower level in the event of natural disasters, such as piling-up of embankments, retaining walls, planting trees, maintaining drainage channels, etc., and accordingly, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the damage, since rainwater is concentrated on a specific part of the Defendant’s land at the time of the storm immediately following the typhoon in 2016, and the damage to the property occurred due to the storming of the Plaintiffs’ land.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 10 and Eul's evidence Nos. 3 through 21 (including numbers), the facts that the defendant's land is located in the upper zone of the plaintiffs' land and the plaintiffs suffered damage from earth and sand that flown from the upper zone in 2016 may be acknowledged. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is obligated to prevent the defendant from spreading a stable or retaining wall, etc., or maintaining a drainage and drainage channel to prevent natural disasters, such as typhoons, floods, and floods.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the above damage suffered by the plaintiffs was caused by earth and sand flowing entirely from the defendant's land, and otherwise, evidence to acknowledge it is recognized.