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. Basic facts

A. On September 21, 2010, the strong rainfall 259.5m was concentrated in Seoul on September 21, 2010, and the basement boiler rooms, etc. of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing (hereinafter “Plaintiff Housing”) owned by the Plaintiff were flooded.

(hereinafter referred to as “the flood accident of this case”). B.

Plaintiff

Housing is located between the lower end of the valley and the upper end of the six meters wide. On the front of the smaller door above the largest door of the Plaintiff’s housing, there is a communications board installed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant communications board”). On the ground that the flood accident of this case occurred, there is a passage way to enter the half or underground boiler room of the Plaintiff’s housing where the flood accident of this case occurred.

C. The instant communications owner is established for the provision of telecommunications services by the Defendant around 1982, and the part of the land located at the communications owner is part of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF Road, Seocho-gu.

On the other hand, however, the neighboring housing, including the plaintiff, has accumulated sand shots for flood prevention at the entrance or installed flood prevention thresholds.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 11-1-4, Gap evidence 12-12, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, results of on-site inspection by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 21, 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion was brush in Seoul area. At the time, as a group of classes, garbage, etc., which was laid down in front of the small door of the Plaintiff’s housing, left a large volume of water flow into the underground room through the small door of the Plaintiff’s housing, and the underground room of the Plaintiff’s housing was flooded.

The flood accident of this case is caused by the defendant's mistake in the establishment and preservation of communications owners of this case, and the defendant is the plaintiff due to the flood accident of this case pursuant to Articles 758 through 750 of the Civil Act.