beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of land, such as Hongcheon-gun C, D, E, F, and G, and was cultivated in the past. The Defendant is the owner of H and I land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant land”).
Plaintiff
The agricultural waterway supplied water to the land owned by the Plaintiff was naturally flowing through the pipes of each of the instant land, and around May 2017, the Defendant purchased each of the instant land, installed a fume, and prevented the Defendant from flowing water to the land owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was no longer embarred.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount claimed as part of the damage.
2. It is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the statement or image of Gap 5 to 6 (including paper numbers), is insufficient to acknowledge that the existing farm water can not flow to the land owned by the plaintiff due to the defendant's installation of a fume, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the results of the expertJ’s appraisal, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the farming waterway, which was flowed through the land of this case, was not the only farming channel which supplied water to the land owned by the Plaintiff, but there was another separate farming channel; (b) whether the flow of water on the natural soil waterway existing due to the Defendant’s fume and earth filled up was obstructed by a certain degree; (c) the Defendant’s installation of the fume in the place where the fume is made up to the fume, and the flow of water is leading to the flow of water from the place where the fume is made up to the place where the fume is located; and (d) the fact that the flow of water from the nearby area to the Plaintiff’s land is not followed by the flow of water to the Plaintiff’s land (see the attached drawing). In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.