1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, based on the premise, leased from E and F, six plastic greenhouses on each ground, and cultivated 5 square meters on each of the following grounds from the date of March 30, 2013 to the date of Daejeon Seosung-gu C 3,020 square meters and D 2,95 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-leased land”).

On April 8, 2015, the Defendant purchased 2,725 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) from G from Daejeon Seosung-gu H, Daejeon-gu, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 21, 2015, part of the land owned by the Defendant is leased to I and a rice shed is dried in the remainder.

Plaintiff

There is a ditch owned by the state between the leased land and the land owned by the defendant.

On September 11, 2017, from around 02:00 to around 11:00, approximately 77m rained in the Daejeon area, and from the said ditches, there was an accident in which rainwater is flooded as the Plaintiff’s vinyl house (hereinafter “the flood accident”), and there was a damage that was being cultivated due to weather damage.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the flood accident in this case was caused by the wind that the earth and sand that flows into and flows out of the land owned by the Defendant did not normally flow the ditches into the wind, and the Plaintiff’s leased land was accumulated into the land. Although the Defendant had a duty of care to maintain and repair the embankment surrounding the land owned by the Defendant and not to cause any damage to any other objection, the Defendant was negligent in doing so, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff due to the flood accident in this case. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate for property damage in 30 million won and consolation money in 2017 due to the flood of this case, which caused the volume of erroneous shipment by the flood of this case.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the flood accident of this case is the Plaintiff’s leased land where the water length of this case elapsed by preventing the ditch as it was caused by the earth’s draft while the flood accident occurred on the part of the Defendant’s land.