The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is just that the lower court determined that the Defendants, who are only the users of the instant sewage pipes, did not have an obligation to compensate the Plaintiff, who is the landowner, directly pursuant to Article 29 of the Sewerage Act. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Defendants did not constitute the Defendants’ liability for compensation under Article 226 of the Civil Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s damage is satisfied with compensation made by the installer of the sewage pipe and that new damage cannot be caused, if the Defendants performed sewage through the instant sewage pipe, not through the draft of sewage, but through the part of other land, other than the instant sewage pipe, and is already laid underground.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 226 of the Civil Code recognizes the owner of notice's right to communicate water to the public road, the public road, or the lower land on the part of the public road to reach the sewerage system, and at the same time, stipulates that the owner of notice has the duty to compensate for the damage to the owner of the lower land.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendants, other than the instant sewage pipes installed in each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, used the Plaintiff’s land as lawful use pursuant to Article 218 or 226 of the Civil Act. Therefore, if the Defendants legitimately use each of the instant land pursuant to Article 226 of the Civil Act, the Defendants, in principle, are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom.

The lower court cited the circumstance that the Defendants discharges sewage through the instant sewage pipes laid underground.