beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
(b) Cause analysis is a field of civil engineering, and if necessary, it would be possible to grasp specific flooding by utilizing experts in relevant fields;
As stated above, it seems that the result of the appraisal entrustment merely assumed the cause of flooding as a premise to present the “the degree of damage caused by flooding”.
As to this, the plaintiff's maintenance of drainage way in the part of the national highways of this case, upon the plaintiff's civil petition application, can be acknowledged that there was a defect in the national highways of this case.
The defendant asserts that the defect in the construction and management of public structures can be recognized even if the defendant did not dredge the two or more places where the collection and alteration was to be installed.
However, according to the Plaintiff’s civil petition, the Defendant performed the maintenance work of the drainage pipe, and in the process, additionally reflected the Plaintiff’s civil petition in the process, extended the size of the drainage pipe U to the “(0.3*0.3), L=7.0m” to the “(0.8*0.35), L=7.0m” type. Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant additionally installed the steel board and the main iron lids, etc. on the drainage channel, and it cannot be deemed that there was any defect in the construction and management of the instant national road solely on the basis of such fact.
In addition, there is no evidence to prove that there was any defect in the construction and management of the national highways of this case since only two houses were built on the drainage channel of the national highways of this case in the vicinity of the factory of this case.
Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the damage of this case was inflicted on the Plaintiff due to the failure of the Defendant to dredge the drainage channel, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is not right to see one mother.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.
The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is groundless.