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. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2007, the Plaintiff leased from Defendant B the building located on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si C (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the said Defendant, and used it for the purpose of keeping the prefabricateds, etc. after renting it to the said building.

(See Attached Form). (b)

On December 31, 2009, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the acquisition of land for public use pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) with respect to Pyeongtaek-si D 6,605 square meters (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”), which is the land adjacent to the instant building, due to the consultation on the acquisition of land for public use. On September 1, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 1, 2010 with respect to Pyeongtaek-si C 6,043 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”).

(c) around July 27, 201 and the same year.

8. Around 26.26. Around 26.26. Around the instant building, hot spring water entered into the instant building, and a part of the Plaintiff’s dives, etc. were damaged.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers for which a branch number is attached), the result of verification by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s return, etc. imported from the instant building (hereinafter “instant goods”).

of the same year and around July 27, 201, and the same year.

8. The soil sand of the instant neighboring land was leaked to the instant site due to the concentration of around 26.2, and the water of this case was damaged due to the inflow of soil to the instant building.

2 The Defendant Corporation violated its duty to take measures to prevent soil erosion on the adjoining land, which is the owner of the instant adjacent land.

In addition, Defendant Corporation is the owner of the instant land, and is the owner of a drainage channel installed on the instant land.