1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,982,380 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 25, 2014 to November 30, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, around August 2014, operated a store with the trade name “CMat (hereinafter “CMat”) in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and the Defendant is a person who installs and manages the E reservoir in the upstream of D located at a distance of about 50 meters from the instant marina (hereinafter “instant reservoir”).

B. Around 13:00 on August 25, 2014, the weather authority issued a warning to the front-gun of the plane captain. The accumulated amount of this day measured around 14:00, around 66.5m, around 14:30, around 117.5m, around 15:00, around 185.0m, and the daily rainfall amount was 226m.

C. The planned flood level of the reservoir of this case is 96.00 meters and the bank elevation is 96.40 meters and the design rainfall is 250.90 meters at the time of completion.

On August 25, 2014, the instant reservoir began to collapse from 14:55 on August 25, 2014, and the water leaked from the instant reservoir was lowered according to D and eroding bank, and reached F Village around 15:25 on the same day depending on roads, etc.

E. On August 25, 2014, the instant marina, which reached 135.85 cm, the maximum flood water level (hereinafter “the instant flood flood water”) on August 25, 2014, appears to have reached the maximum flood water level of 93.36 cm.

F. There was no problem in G, H, and I, other rivers located in the plane captain-gun except in the vicinity D, regardless of the strong margin of the flood disaster of this case.

G. The result of the instant flood inspection conducted in Busan Metropolitan City was that the Defendant did not establish an implementation plan for the safety management of reservoirs under Article 18 of the Rural Community Improvement Act in relation to the management of the instant reservoir, and was performed based on the wrong water storage capacity, but did not implement the procedures for the improvement and repair of the facilities according to the result of the thorough safety inspection conducted in 2013, and was pointed out to have neglected to respond to the situation of the disaster response field manuals, and there was disciplinary action, such as complying fms decoration and caution.

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute;