1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following after examining the part “3. Judgment” in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be seen by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the evidence mentioned above as well as the evidence mentioned above as well as evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, and 12 as well as witness F of the first instance trial and witness G’s testimony, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff consented to the Defendant’s use of fume, which is laid underground, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① On December 8, 2009, the Plaintiff visited a work site at the time before and after the instant fume is laid underground, and met F, a work site leader of the Defendant, and paid KRW 1.6 million as construction cost to F.

② The Plaintiff’s land filling-up and laid fume were mobilized by 15 tons of 15 tons of dump truck and fume with a diameter of 800 meters in diameter. In light of the frequency and scale of the above construction work, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was unaware of the contents of the work.

In addition, G visited the work site at F and at the time testified to the effect that “the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against fume, and rather, required to fill additional fume and fill additional fume on two occasions.” The Plaintiff testified with the assent of all to the effect that “the Plaintiff was asked to fill additional fume.”

③ The Defendant’s land was installed with a drainage pipe only from the Defendant’s land to Pyeongtaek-si E, and the water from the said drainage pipe was flowing through a public sewerage system by blocking the Plaintiff’s land along the natural drainage channel. Since the Defendant purchased the Defendant’s land in a state where the construction permit was issued based on the drainage channel secured as above, it is difficult to deem that there was no consent or request from the Plaintiff, even without the Plaintiff’s consent or request.

(4)