손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff installed a breeding facility and raised dogs, etc. at the same time after leasing a forest land B and a building thereon in Namyang-si, Namyang-si. However, around June 2004, a settlement was concluded between the lessor and the Plaintiff, including the return of the said forest land (hereinafter “the settlement in this case”) in a lawsuit claiming delivery of the said forest land, etc. filed by the lessor against the Plaintiff on the grounds of the termination of the lease agreement.
B. Accordingly, on July 15, 2005, the Plaintiff intended to relocate the breeding facilities described in the above paragraph (1) to a voluntary implementation of the protocol of conciliation of this case, and installed a breeding facility at the same time after leasing the said land C and D (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Defendant’s employees sought the instant real estate before September 30, 2005, and the Plaintiff could be subject to sanctions in cases where the opening of the instant real estate could not be installed as a development restriction zone and the Plaintiff installed a breeding facility. Thereafter, the Plaintiff’s employees could not transfer the said breeding facilities as the instant real estate, and the enforcement based on the protocol of conciliation of this case was completed, even though the Defendant’s employees were aware of the circumstances from the end of October 2005 to April 206, 206.
C. At the time, dogs were not included in livestock, and the dog breeding facilities were not included in livestock, and they could be constructed without permission, as they are not included in livestock pens that are subject to construction or installation permission in development restriction zones.
As a result, the Plaintiff’s ground for filing a complaint of KRW 86.7 million due to the unlawful performance of duties by the employees belonging to the Defendant.
2. The amount of KRW 84.7 million stated in B-B(3) and B-B(3) seems to be a clerical error based on the calculational error, in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the specific details of damages as follows.
However, the decision shall be made within the scope requested by the plaintiff.
[The compulsory execution cost]