1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of F large 604 square meters (hereinafter “F land”) and its ground buildings and E large 853 square meters (hereinafter “E land”).

If the plaintiff does not pass through the D land owned by the defendant, it is impossible to install waterworks on the land owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks confirmation that the plaintiff has the right to water supply under Article 218 of the Civil Act.

2. Determination

A. Article 218(1) of the Civil Act provides, “The owner of land shall be entitled to install the necessary water supply, minority, gas pipes, electric wires, etc. without passing through another person’s land if it is impossible or excessive expenses are required. However, the owner of land shall select a place and method which does not cause the least damage to the land and shall compensate for the damage at the request of the owner of the other land.” 2) If the owner of land installs a facility to pass through another person’s surrounding land, such as passing through another person’s surrounding land, the place and method in which the damage is the lowest shall be selected. Whether the place and method are so selected shall be determined in light of social norms after taking into consideration the surrounding geographical state, the understanding of the users of the surrounding land, and other overall circumstances, and then taking into account specific cases.

(Supreme Court Decision 85Meu129 delivered on October 22, 1985). B.

Judgment

1) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff is not the owner of F land and the building on the ground as of the date of closing argument of this case is not the owner of F-land as of the date of closing argument of this case, is without merit. 2) According to the purport of the health stand and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff is one of the co-owners of E’s land. However, each of the items of evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2 is the Defendant.