The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The first instance court accepted the claim for the removal of drainage pipes and the prohibition of discharge of sewage, etc. and dismissed the claim for consolation money.

The scope of the trial of this court is limited to the above cited part, since only the defendant appealed to the cited part.

2. The reasoning for this part of the finding by the court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 2, 7, and 3, 16). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Determination

A. The ownership of land, such as drainage pipe removal and sewage discharge prohibition obligation 1), shall be done under the upper part of the land within the reasonable scope of profit (Article 212 of the Civil Act), and the owner may file a claim against the person who interferes with the ownership, and may demand the person who is likely to interfere with the ownership to take preventive measures or to provide a security for compensation for damages (Article 214 of the Civil Act). According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant recognized as the owner of the drainage pipe of this case as the owner of the instant land is obligated to remove the drainage pipe of this case, which passes through the instant land at the request of the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land, and shall not discharge superior and sewage into the instant land. 2) As to this, the Defendant did not own the Defendant, such as the transfer of the drainage pipe of this case from the O, the former owner of the instant land. Thus, the Plaintiff

The fact that the Plaintiff, around December 2016, discarded the drainage pipe buried in the instant land, and then installed a temporary drainage pipe on the part of the drainage pipe that was disposed of by the Plaintiff around February 2017, 2017, and repaired the sewage discharged from the Defendant plant.

However, the drain pipe to discharge the wastewater in the factory is owned by others adjacent to the factory site.