손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and the pleading materials submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment
The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the case where the defendant makes an additional determination as to the matters alleged as the grounds for appeal as stated in paragraph (2) below and as stated in paragraph (3) below, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, this Court cited this case as it is included
2. (a) On the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part "from the above court of bankruptcy" was dismissed to "from the above court".
(b) On the 7th page of the first instance judgment, “A according to the purport of the whole evidence and pleadings as mentioned above,” the first instance judgment was followed by “A’s evidence, evidence No. 49, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”
(c) No. 8 of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment “174,774,430 won” was amended to “176,774,430 won”.
3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal
A. On December 23, 2016, the gist of the Defendant’s assertion that the illegality of possession of the instant public waters was retroactively extinguished upon the conclusion of the instant public waters sales contract. The Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff on December 23, 2016, and agreed that the Defendant’s obligation to remove or take charge of the instant obstacles entered in the instant provisional disposition decision was fulfilled. The agreement includes that the Defendant had been illegally occupying the instant public waters during that agreement ex post facto consent or ratification. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for damages on the ground that the Defendant’s possession of the public waters was illegal. < Amended by Act No. 14478, Dec. 23, 2016>