1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the E Child-Care Center located in G and D (hereinafter “instant child-care center”), and the Defendant is a company that, around July 2017, performed the banking work for the construction of research facilities on the land near the said child-care center F, G, and H (hereinafter “Defendant’s site”).

B. The child-care center of this case is located in the higher area than the Defendant’s site, and the rainwater that flows from and flows out of the YY as it is located in the vicinity of the above child-care center will flow into the Defendant’s site through the child-care center.

On the other hand, I has been connected to the defendant's land and I has been installed an I bank in order to prevent inundation.

C. The instant child-care center was flooded on July 8, 2017 due to the cost that took place on July 8, 2017, but was flooded up to the first floor on July 22, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as "the flood accident of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 21 (including numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. If rainwater, which was fallen near the child care center of the Plaintiff, is lowered to the Defendant’s site through natural drainage, the Defendant’s land adjoining to the Defendant’s site would be drainageed to the I bank through an I bank. The Defendant’s construction on banking to enhance the ground in violation of the duty of water intake (Article 221(1) of the Civil Act), caused the flood of this case by blocking natural drainage.

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

B. Prior to the Defendant’s embanking construction, I bank was already installed at a higher level than four meters compared to the instant childcare center, and rainwater could not flow into I bank through natural drainage.

Therefore, the causal relationship between the defendant's banking work and the flood accident of this case cannot be recognized.

3. The facts acknowledged earlier and Gap.