손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
purport, purport, and.
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant.
The defendant and the co-defendant D of the first instance court (attached Form 5) sought confirmation that they have the right to install facilities, such as water supply, etc. on each parcel of land listed in attached Form 5, to the plaintiffs, and the first instance court dismissed the claim and rendered a judgment of the first instance court that accepted the claim.
However, since only the plaintiffs appealed against the losing part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of the plaintiffs against the defendant.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the attachment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiffs' decision on the assertion that is specifically emphasized by the court of first instance as the ground for appeal is added to Paragraph 3, and thus, it
(However, as examined in the preceding paragraph, the part of the claim for confirmation of facility rights, such as water supply which does not fall within the scope of the judgment of this Court, is excluded).
A. The gist of the claim is that “the Defendant shall construct the instant road in which he/she has performed his/her duty in connection with the publication of the designation of the road, and if not, he/she shall pay the Plaintiffs a penalty or an estimated amount of damages.” The Defendant did not implement such an agreement.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance held that it is difficult to view that the agreement of this case was to pay the agreed amount when the construction and packaging of the road of this case are not performed, and that the remaining plaintiffs dismissed their claim for damages against the defendant.
B. Specific review 1, however, is the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court. It is the argument of this court.