beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.09.20 2017가단31674

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,516,401 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from November 2, 2011 to September 20, 2017, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 2010, the Defendant: (a) conducted a boundary restoration survey on the land (hereinafter “instant adjoining land”); (b) installed a horsemark in the valley, such as a drawing 3-1 point in the attached Form 3-1 of the boundary of the instant adjoining land; and (c) installed a horsemark on the valley (on the part where the line sponss up) of the boundary of the instant adjacent land.

(hereinafter referred to as “the horse of this case”. (b) The horse of this case set up in Annex 3-1.

On November 2, 201, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to conduct a boundary restoration survey on the 1,661 square meters of Gangseo-si D (hereinafter “instant land”) where the ownership transfer registration is made in the Plaintiff’s name, Ma, an employee of the Defendant, completed the boundary restoration survey on the instant land (hereinafter “instant boundary restoration survey”).

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute】

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff’s land of this case is located on the instant line, in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1 of the annexed drawing.

Nevertheless, E, while conducting the boundary restoration surveying of this case, notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the horse of this case constitutes the boundary of the land of this case, the Plaintiff erred by misapprehending that the land of this case is located on the line of this case in sequence 1, 2, 3, 3-1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on the following grounds: (a) the part on board the ship (hereinafter referred to as “the instant part”) was erroneous as part of the instant land; (b) the Plaintiff engaged in entertainment work on the instant land; and (c) included the instant part of the instant part.

B. First, we examine whether E misleads itself as to the boundary of the instant land.

The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 11, and Gap evidence 12 are specified in detail while Eul conducts a boundary restoration survey of this case.