1. Defendant B’s KRW 9 million and, with respect thereto, 5% per annum from October 15, 2013 to February 9, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) The ownership relationship of the land and the state of flowing water 1) The administrative districts of the land C (hereinafter referred to as the “administrative districts”) are the same, and only parcel number

A) The ditches are 1,272 square meters (hereinafter “the ditches of this case”).

(2) At least 40 years prior to the instant ditch, E, F, and G’s owner installed a fish farm on the said third parcel and the water flows below the fish farm via the said ditch. The water was owned by the State. The land of eight parcels around the said ditch is owned by Defendant B, and M and N adjacent to the south of the land owned by the Defendant is owned by the Plaintiff. (2) At least 40 years prior to the instant ditch, E, F, and G’s owner, who installed a fish farm and installed the fish farm on the said third parcel, was not closed, and the water flows below the fish farm via the said ditch. This water did not go beyond the Nland owned by the Plaintiff, and it was also formed a small-scale ditch within the boundary of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

B. On September 27, 2002, Psss. 1) The request for permission to use and benefit from state property for the purpose of using 957 square meters of the ditches among the ditches of this case as a residential access road to the Yangju-gun on September 27, 2002. The public official in charge at the time submitted a duplicate statement to the effect that “The part on the upper part of the ditches of this case functions as a ditch, and only the part on the upper part of the ditches of this case is used as a ditch, or a substitute ditch is formed with an individual private land, and the substitute ditch functions as a drainage. In the case of permission to use and benefit from the actual condition that requires a ditch for the purpose of the local topographical function, it is necessary to maintain the state property for its original purpose, and it is necessary to return the alternative to return the land as a minimum area for the purpose of opening the access road.” Accordingly, the public official in charge at the time submitted a duplicate statement to the effect that P is reduced to the size of use and benefit as the area of the P.