beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and rejected the claim for damages due to the difference in the height of the instant real estate and the instant road, on the ground that the Defendant, the manager of the instant road, violated the duty to take protective measures to prevent large vehicles from having access to the instant real estate, thereby failing to meet the ordinary safety requirements, and thus, it is insufficient to deem that there was a defect in the construction and management thereof.
Plaintiff
The ground of appeal as to the time of acquiring the ownership of the instant real estate by the representative director B is nothing more than an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.
Furthermore, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding and determination are justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the installation and management of roads,
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the court below acknowledged liability for damages due to defects in the road drainage facilities of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and recognized only 90% of the total decline in utility value of the real estate of this case as 10% and deducted the decline in utility value. This part of the ground of appeal as to the scope of recognition of liability for damages is merely an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. In light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending
3. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court stated in its reasoning.