1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is to be cited by the court, is that the reasoning of the judgment is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts: (a) the part of “determination on this case” is written in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the reasoning that the Defendant’s installation of the instant colon in the instant land, unlike the location of the design drawing, constitutes a defect in the construction of the instant land, as to the assertion that the instant colon was installed on the ground that the instant colon was installed on the boundary of the instant land and the instant land, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence 3 (including a provisional number, where a branch number exists, the same as the instant case), Eul evidence 5, and the result of the on-site inspection by the commissioned judge of the court of first instance, and the entire pleadings, the Defendant originally intended to install the drainage and coarization at the boundary of the instant land and the instant land, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gai (hereinafter “Ki”), but it is recognized that the Defendant installed at the instant land adjacent to the relevant boundary point due

However, the changed location is not much different from the location according to the design drawing, not only does the drainage pipes and house modifications of this case have to be installed at the boundary point with the land of this case, but also there are any statutory restrictions to be established at the boundary point with the land of this case, and its location may be changed by the design modification according to the necessity of the on-site situation.

Moreover, E appears to have been well aware of the location, structure, and form of the instant colon by engaging in farming activities for a long time on the land before and after the instant colonization. As such, insofar as the instant coarization itself established by the Defendant does not have safety ordinarily in accordance with its intended purpose, it is difficult to recognize that the instant coarization was defective in the installation and management of the instant coarization, just because it was somewhat moved from the location where the design drawing was determined and installed.