손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including numbers) and the entire video and oral pleadings, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages. A around August 2012, the defendant is liable to compensate for losses by 10gs (hereinafter “instant abortions”) owned by the plaintiff without the plaintiff’s permission.
(2) The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for any damage to the Plaintiff’s property caused by the instant timber without permission. (3) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was punished by the Plaintiff’s 14gs without permission, but the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the Defendant’s 3,9, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 3-3, 9, and 10, are specified as 10gs as a result of the Defendant’s on-site investigation by the Jung-Gun Office. In light of the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant’s 1 to 13gs of the evidence No. 4-1 to 13, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant imposed additional 4gs without permission, except for the instant fallens, on the sole basis of each of the images of the evidence No. 4-1 to 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
3) Although the Defendant asserted that he/she was punished for the instant abortion with C’s consent, according to the written evidence Nos. 5 and 9, C is merely a member of the Plaintiff and cannot be deemed the chairperson or representative of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected. (B) In general, damages caused by tort shall be deemed as the market price at the time of loss when the article was destroyed, the expenses incurred in repairing or restoring the article to its original state if it was damaged, or the expenses incurred in repairing or restoring the article to its original state if it is impossible to repair or restore it to its original state, or excessive expenses are incurred.
(Supreme Court Decision 95Da38233 delivered on January 23, 1996). Accordingly, in the instant case, trees similar to the instant abortion are trees.