The scope of the duty of natural running water under Article 221(1) of the Civil Act

The owner of land is obligated to take the natural flowing water under Article 221(1) of the Civil Code, but it is only passive that the owner of land cannot interfere with the natural flowing water from adjoining land, and it does not actively require the owner of land to bear the duty of maintaining the natural flowing water.

Article 221(1) of the Civil Act

Sam Chang Machinery Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 76Na696 delivered on July 6, 1977

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff-Appellant’s Lee Jae-sub’s grounds of appeal and the grounds of appeal on this part are examined together.

(1) In light of the records, the court below's rejection of each plaintiff's assertion at the time of original decision after compiling the evidence at the time of original decision is justified, and there are no arguments that the court below erred by not based on the documentary evidence or by misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence.

(2) Article 221(1) of the Civil Act provides that the owner of the land shall not actively interfere with the natural flow of water that flows naturally from the adjoining land, and it shall not be interpreted that the owner of the land should bear the duty of the owner of the land to actively maintain the natural flow of water. Accordingly, the court below's review of the original judgment is found to have conducted the original judgment under the above legal principles, and even though the owner of the land did not exercise the right of explanation on how much of the water flows into the sewage zone or about the prospect of increase in water volume in the future, it shall not be deemed to be a failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations or to be a failure to criticize the owner of the land as a result of the failure to exercise the right of explanation. Thus, there is no ground for discussing this issue.

(3) Therefore, even though the court below did not provide a specific statement on the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's violation of the duty of acceptance of sewage under Article 221 (1) of the Civil Code, the original facts of judgment refer to the fact that the defendant does not prevent natural oil from drinking water in this case, and therefore, it is groundless to hold that the court below erred in the omission of judgment.

(4) As above, each of the arguments by the court below that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the obligation to take over water under Article 221 (1) of the Civil Code and the alteration of water course under Article 229 of the same Act shall also be returned to the court below's disposition. The appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)