[1] In a case where the development and intake of new groundwater causes or is likely to cause disturbance to the existing water use of the neighboring land owner, whether the neighboring land owner's right to claim the obstruction, removal and prevention of the water use for living (affirmative)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the head of a local government erred in ordering the suspension of change of forest form and quality until minor civil petition solvings, pursuant to the reservation clause of the right of cancellation in the vice official

[1] When a land owner newly collects groundwater through the water-flowing hole installed by performing the development of groundwater, etc., and consequently causes or threatens to cause obstacles to drinking water of a neighboring land owner who uses groundwater generated from sources in the neighboring land, or other water necessary for living, the neighboring land owner may file a claim necessary for the prevention or interference of such water-supply unless there is any ground to justify the interference with water-supply for living.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the head of local government erred in ordering the suspension of change of forest form and quality until minor civil petition solvings, pursuant to the reservation clause of the right of cancellation in the vice official

[1] Articles 212, 214, 235, and 236 of the Civil Act, Article 9 of the Management of Drinking Water Act, Article 90 of the Forestry Act, Article 88 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act / [2] Article 90 of the Forestry Act, Article 88 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da48913 delivered on April 28, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1487)

Plaintiff

Msan Market (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 97Gu8557 delivered on February 18, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff's disposal of the above 1,39 square meters of 10,05 square meters of the ground water supply site of 00 square meters of 10,000, 200 square meters of 10,000 square meters of 1,000, 2000 square meters of 1,000, 300 square meters of 1,000, 1996, the plaintiff applied for permission to change the form and quality of the forest to the defendant on July 18, 196, for the purpose of establishing and operating the 196, 1,000 square meters of 1,00 square meters of 2,000, 100 square meters of 2,000, 1,0000, 3,0000, 1,0000 square meters of 2,00,000 square meters of 3,000 square meters of 3,00.

2. According to the records, the permission for changing the form and quality of a forest granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff does not cause civil petitions by taking preventive measures against the danger and injury caused by the damage, and when civil petitions deemed reasonable for the neighboring residents are not resolved, the permission can be cancelled. Meanwhile, when a certain landowner collects groundwater through the water-flow hole newly installed in the area where the development of groundwater is performed, and there is a concern that there is an obstacle to the neighboring land owner to drinking water or other water necessary for living which is generated from the source in the surrounding land or there is a concern that there is an obstacle to the development of the groundwater, the neighboring land owner may make a request necessary for the prevention or interference with the water-supply of the water (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da48913, Apr. 28, 1998; Decision 97Da48913, Apr. 28, 1998). In this case, even if the facts determined by the court below, it is difficult to conclude that the above village residents did not have any objective effect on the water-water supply of the village and the new water-water development plan for 10 days.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff's act of causing the above civil petition violates the above vice officers. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act of ordering the suspension of forest form and quality change until the minor civil petition is resolved rather than the cancellation cancellation permission pursuant to the above vice officers' cancellation right reservation clause, but it is not erroneous in the court below's decision that it is unlawful, but it is an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the vice officers of administrative act, misunderstanding the necessary deliberation, or misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence. There is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)