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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land and the ground land (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendant is the owner of the land and the land (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) adjacent to the instant real estate, which is the owner of the land and the land E (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) adjacent to the previous land, and the non-party net F is the owner of the instant real estate and the land adjacent to each of the land owned by the Defendant and the land adjacent to the land owned by the Defendant, which managed the H land (hereinafter “the land in the middle”).

B. From 2008 to 2009, the Defendant developed large trees as dry field by digging out part of each land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant reclamation”).

C. The net F, around 201, installed a wall by piling up soil on the boundary of the land owned by the clan and each land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant soil wall”). D.

Since then, in many cases, water and earth and sand have been accumulated from each land owned by the defendant into the real estate of this case, and the ground of the real estate of this case has been invaded, and there has been damage.

E. On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from I and acquired its ownership.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (including paper numbers) and video, testimony by J of the trial witness and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, without permission to divert a mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, laid down large trees on the land owned by the Defendant as a dry field without permission to divert a mountainous district. As a result, the Defendant did not take any damage measures despite being aware that the Plaintiff, netF, etc. suffered damage by cutting down the land owned by the instant real estate and the land owned by the clans below, and instead led the Defendant to flow all of the water into the land owned by the clans by the Defendant by digging out a ditch around each land owned by the Defendant. 2) In light of these circumstances, the Defendant’s perception is required to take into account.