손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
1. The Plaintiff asserted as to the cause of the claim: (a) purchased 17,000,000 Won from C in a dry field (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”) of the Nam-gun, Nam-gun, Nam (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”); and (b) sought to harvest the instant dancing on December 5, 2018; and (c) the Defendant prevented the Plaintiff from harvesting and removing free of charge.
Even if the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, was a legitimate right holder, such as a tenant of the dry field of this case, and C cultivated without permission, the ownership of the crops cultivated is owned by the cultivator.
In this regard, the plaintiff has legitimate interest in removing the gift of this case from the plaintiff, so long as the plaintiff purchased without compensation from C as the farmer of this case without permission.
However, since the defendant interfered with this, the plaintiff did not harvest the case from time to time, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred thereby.
2. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant prevented the Plaintiff from shipping in the dry field of this case leased by the Defendant E.
However, there was no material to identify the volume or unit price of the instant non-performance, and the Plaintiff and C entered into a sales contract, etc.
Therefore, there is no ground to view that the Plaintiff purchased the instant visa at KRW 17 million from C by itself with the written confirmation of facts (including evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and each number) of C, etc.
In addition, 9 million won out of 17 million won of the purchase price, C’s receipt (Evidence A No. 5) prepared in lieu of 9 million won that C had to pay to the Plaintiff, which is likely to believe the contents of its statement as it is, because there is no objective evidence on the quantity-frequency transaction corresponding thereto, and the remaining details of deposit transaction ( = 17 million won - 9 million won) submitted in relation to the payment of the purchase price are also made between the Plaintiff and C.