1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 21,980,580 and KRW 147,80,510 among them.

1. Basic facts and

2. As to this part of the parties’ assertion, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (from 10 to 3 pages of the judgment of the first instance) shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, part of the following shall be cut:

Two pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, "B and eight lots other than Gyeonggi-do, do so from a third party," and two pages of the judgment of first instance shall be divided into "B and eight lots of land owned by the third party, 25,886 square meters."

In the second and second first half of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Evidence A 1 through 11" shall be written with "Evidence A 1 through 12, and Evidence B 22".

3. The relevant part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 4th to 9 last person of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the occurrence of liability for damages.

However, part of the following shall be cut:

The 4th page of the judgment of the first instance shall be changed to the 'design-level' of the 8th parallel of the judgment.

The following reasons are as follows: “The instant reservoir ought to be excluded from flood pursuant to the flood discharge in response to the frequency of flood in 200 years, but it is merely 2.77m2/s of the exclusionary volume, and thus lacks the capacity of excluding flood discharge, and the dam floor width is insufficient.” The instant reservoir’s 32.64m/s of 32.64m2/s (200m2/s of the flood frequency in 200 x 1.2m2) the flood discharge, which added 20% to the flood discharge in 200 years, (the flood discharge in 200 x 1.7m2).” The flood level is merely 2.77ms of 77ms and the actual exclusionary volume is insufficient, and the flood level is insufficient to eliminate the flood level, and each wall of the waterproof route and the water reduction is insufficient, and each dam is insufficient to lack and the width of the dam.”

In the judgment of the first instance, “9.22㎡/s” in the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as “9.22 cubic meters/s”, and “1.81С/sss” in the nine pages as “1.81 cubic meters/s”.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, “32.64㎡/s” in the 15th place of the 15th place of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “32.64 cubic meters/s,” “2.77㎡/s” in the 16th place of the 16th place of the road shall be deemed to be “2.77 cubic meters/s,” “9.22㎡/s” in the 17th place of the 17th place of the road shall be deemed to be “9.22 cubic meters/s.