1. In order to the Plaintiff, the Defendant indicated in the attached Table 22, 23, 24, 37, and 22, among the land size of 1,568 square meters prior to C in the city of public housing.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 19, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased 1,568 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) prior to C in official city from D on April 19, 201 and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on May 28, 2014.

The plaintiff operates part of the plaintiff's land as a stable, and some of the remaining parts are used as a dry field.

B. The Defendant is the owner of 2,694 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

The defendant works as a rice shed on the land of the defendant.

C. After the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land, the Defendant, along with the line that connects each point of the 1 and 2 annexed air carrier indication 1 and 2 to enable the Defendant’s agricultural water discharged from the Defendant’s land to be discharged through F ditches, installed U-owned concrete drainage pipes (hereinafter “the instant drainage pipes”). Of the instant drainage pipes, the attached appraisal of the instant drainage pipes, the part on which the Plaintiff was able to connect each point of the 22, 23, 24, 37, and 22, is serving as the Plaintiff’s land.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1, 2, 3, 7, 10 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination as to the claim to remove part of the drainage pipe of this case

A. According to the above facts, since the attached appraisal among the drainage pipes of this case established by the defendant is against the plaintiff's land, the part of the 4thm2 connected to each point of the attached Table 22,23,24,37, and 22, the attached appraisal among the drainage pipes of this case established by the defendant, the defendant is obligated to remove the above part to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to this, the Defendant restored the previous drainage route to the former owner of the Plaintiff’s land, and excavated the drainage route to the same location as the drainage pipe of this case. The Defendant is merely limited to the installation of the above U-owned concrete drainage pipe. According to Articles 221(1) and 222 of the Civil Act, the land owner is not able to prevent the natural flow of water.