손해배상(기)
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 court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, thereby citing this case’s assertion in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Additional determination of 2.
A. The Plaintiff asserted that all agreements on the illegal wastes buried on the ground of the instant land were reached on August 21, 2009 (hereinafter “each of the instant reports”) based on the letter prepared by the Defendant on August 21, 2009 (hereinafter “each of the instant reports”), and that this constitutes a confession made by the Defendant while recognizing that the illegal wastes buried on the ground of the instant land, and thus, the court held that the confession was bound by the said judicial confession and that any other judgment cannot be made. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable for damages only by the fact that the Defendant distributed the buried land as the landowner, regardless of the Defendant’s awareness of the illegal wastes, pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da66549 Decided May 19, 2016.
Judgment
1) We examine the judgment as to the assertion, Eul, Eul, and Eul (to add the purport of the entire argument to the statement, the plaintiff and the defendant confirmed that "the problems regarding the land of this case, including reclamation, were resolved on August 21, 2009, and the defendant was not responsible for the land of this case," and since the defendant prepared and delivered the letter of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case violates the additional claim agreement. However, it is difficult to view that the above facts alone alone led to the defendant's confession with the knowledge that illegal wastes were buried in the ground of this case, and rather, the court of first instance did not recognize that there was no agreement on the non-action for the wastes buried in the land of this case.