All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ defect in the installation and management of the instant facilities is difficult to view that there was causation with the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the flood accident, as long as the inundation of neighboring rivers due to the abnormal concentration is highly likely to be the main cause of the flood accident of this case, after compiling the adopted evidence.

In light of the records, although there is a somewhat inappropriate part of the reasoning of the court below's reasoning, the court below's conclusion that the defendants' defect in the establishment and management of the facilities of this case in relation to the flood accident of this case cannot be deemed to have a causal relationship with the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the flood accident of this case is just and acceptable. In this regard, the court below's decision is justified, by misapprehending the legal principles as to the judgment of proximate causal relation between the principle of pleading or the binding force of judicial confession, the river Act and its Enforcement Rule, the defect in the installation and management of the

In addition, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.