손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The first instance court, within the scope of the judgment of this court, dismissed both the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim. Since only the plaintiff appealed against the dismissal part of the main claim, the object of the judgment of this court is limited to the plaintiff's main claim.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the same Ri’s land, which is located in the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 9m2, D 1,831m2, E, and 767m2 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s land”) prior to the Gyeonggi-do Special Metropolitan City, and the same Ri’s land is specified as the lot number when indicating the location of the land.
B. From around 2011, the Defendant: (a) from around the Plaintiff’s land, the construction of a horse riding course and resort in F, G, and H land, etc. around the Plaintiff’s land.
C. The Plaintiff’s land is surrounded by an I river owned by the State, and water flows over the I river between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land and the F, G, and H’s land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries or images, and the purport of whole pleadings, as stated in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 10, 13, 15, 19, 25, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
3. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion from around 2011, the Defendant, while carrying out construction, laid the path on the Plaintiff’s land and set gravel into yellow land, and damaged the Plaintiff’s land by putting the real dog around the Plaintiff’s land into a car.
Therefore, even though the Plaintiff filled up the Plaintiff’s land at KRW 2,660,00 for the restoration of the original state around September 2012, the Defendant, while performing construction work around 2013, he again damaged the Plaintiff’s land and stored a plastic wall on the river site used as an access road. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to enter the Plaintiff’s land without a dry field farming shed and caused mental suffering therefrom.
Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,503,00 and KRW 2 million as damages for the restoration of the land and access roads to the Plaintiff.
B. Each of the above evidence 1, evidence Nos. 6, 20, 26, 31, and 32