1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the area of 516 square meters prior to C in macro-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of the area of 175 square meters and the area of 912 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

Each of the above lands is adjacent to one another.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant, while constructing a building on the land owned by the Defendant, was obligated to compensate for the damage, since it did not restore the land to its original state, even if part of the instant land was cut hythm and rhyd without the Plaintiff’s consent.

Comprehensively taking account of the images of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the on-site verification by this court, the land of this case is located in the notification unit rather than the land owned by the defendant, and the part adjacent thereto is not rectangular but rhym; and ② The defendant may recognize the fact that the land of this case is not accumulated into the adjacent part by means of iron bars, etc.

Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the images of Eul evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the paper number), the defendant created a ditch on the land of this case in consultation with the head of the village in order to resolve the concentrating rain in the land of this case located on the land of this case where the defendant constructed a new building on the land of this case, which is located on the land of this case where rainwater and Saturdays are located on the land of this case, into another house in the vicinity, due to the centralized rain, and ② the land of this case and the land owned by the defendant are located on the middle of the land of this case, not on the adjacent part of the land of this case. The defendant newly constructed the building, and then recon

However, it can be confirmed whether the above part of the land of this case was originally dismissed, and whether it was rhyd due to the Defendant’s damage, and whether it was originally rhyd.