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. From 2012, the Plaintiff leased dry field Nos. 750 square meters (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”) located in Yangju-si, Yangju-si (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”) and cultivated white field, etc., and the Defendant is a person who runs the dry field business in D and E land (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”) in contact with a part of the dry field of this case, such as the annexed drawing.

B. The Defendant constructed a stable in the instant stable site around spring in 2013.

C. At the time of construction of a stable, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to restore the soil, gravel, etc. to its original state, and the Defendant, at the time of construction of a stable, he stored cement block on the instant dry field and the part on the boundary of the instant stable site (hereinafter “instant boundary”). On May 2014, the Plaintiff installed a type of measuring tool (prefabricated-type drainage channel) and the Plaintiff’s claim on drainage route continued, around April 2016, he installed a concrete retaining wall for outstanding erosion prevention and installed most of the instant boundary as of the date of closing argument in the instant appellate trial, and a concrete retaining wall remains in the same part.

The above concrete retaining wall and each type side of the concrete retaining wall are already linked to the drainage channel installed on the boundary between the dry field of this case and the land of the F at Yangju, and to the drainage channel installed on the boundary between the stable site of this case and the above F land, and are linked to the drainage channel located on the east boundary of the dry field of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 25, 26, 30, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The determination of the Plaintiff should have installed devices to prevent the Defendant from entering the drainage route in the process of constructing a stable, and failed to remove the soil and gravel that entered the drainage route after the completion of the construction work, but the drainage channel installed on the boundary of the instant case is closed.