1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. According to the facts without a dispute over the basic facts and the statements in Gap evidence 1-1-5, the plaintiffs are the persons holding the right to share the land D, E, and F in Incheon-gun, and the defendant is recognized as the owner of G and H land located adjacent to the above land.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although water flows naturally between the above G and H land, the Defendant’s claim was originally made, the Defendant’s natural flowing water was changed due to the change in the flow of flowing water to the Plaintiffs’ land due to the change in the flow of flowing water after the Defendant indicated the attached Form D and E, and the fence installation work, etc.

As a result, the ground is infringed by water coming from the housing owned by the plaintiffs, and the housing is damaged.

Since the defendant violated the duty of natural water conveyance under Article 221 of the Civil Code, the part that the defendant constructed shall be removed, and the plaintiff B shall be liable to compensate for damages of KRW 1,70,000,000 paid to the plaintiff B in order to fill up the house.

B. (i) According to the provision of Article 221(1) of the Civil Act, the owner of land may not interfere with the natural flow of water coming from adjoining land.

In addition, the term "natural flowing water" includes water that is not water that falls on the ground or flows out on the ground.

B.On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that natural oil flows towards the land owned by the plaintiffs.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize whether the flow of natural milk has changed due to the land-raising construction works and the installation works of fences conducted by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiffs, leading to the land owned by the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.