On November 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on November 2017, that “the Plaintiff shall cultivate a lusium on the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) and pay to the Defendant a half of the remaining harvested material after deducting necessary expenses.” The Plaintiff sold and cultivated the lusium on the instant land.

However, around April 19, 2018, the Defendant, in violation of the foregoing agreement, damaged the field of the inspection of the instant land cultivated by the Plaintiff into a farming machine.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 2,500,000 won for damages due to default or tort (=1,800,000 consolation money of KRW 700,000 for property damage) and damages for delay.

Judgment

The evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff agreed to cultivate the bidding interest on the land of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff is liable to use the land of this case for the non-performance of obligation is without merit.

We examine the claim for damages caused by the tort.

Even if the land was cultivated without any title by a person without title, if such land was mature, the ownership of the land belongs to the cultivator (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da913, Feb. 21, 1963). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff cultivated a dog in the instant land without permission from the Defendant, it shall be held liable for tort arising from the infringement of ownership if the land was damaged by the Defendant.

However, after compiling the following circumstances, the Plaintiff cultivated the inspection of the instant land on the sole basis of the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, and 9 (including each number), the testimony at the first instance and the trial of the witness D, and each testimony at the trial.

The plaintiff is also the plaintiff.