All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court determined, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, that the Defendant did not take measures, such as appropriately repairing a river in accordance with the river maintenance master plan, and that there was a management defect that was not equipped with the ordinary safety required at the time of the flood disaster, and that the flood disaster in this case occurred.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on liability for damages and defects in public structures, etc.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the Defendant cannot be exempted from liability for damages in relation to the Plaintiffs, on the ground that, even if the soil company, which was introduced at the construction site during which Daewoo Construction was being executed, was the cause of the increase in the level C, the Defendant is merely the joint and several liability as the joint and several liability for damages.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on liability for damages, etc. without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, this part of the ground of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the court below's exclusive jurisdiction, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Examining the grounds of appeal No. 5 in light of the relevant legal principles and records.