A. On March 2008, the Plaintiff planted 90 pine trees on the ground of B,584 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant is a company that performs the repair and maintenance works of power facilities and related facilities, and the high voltage power transmission line managed by the Defendant is installed at 14-16 meters above the land of this case.

C. On August 24, 2012, in order to prevent damage to the power transmission line due to typhoons, the Defendant carried out rof work on small trees near the power transmission line among the small trees on the instant land, and carried out rof work on the 29th day of the same month in preparation for the typhoon Denmark.

From August 27, 2012 to December 28, 2012, the area was within the influence of typhoons with the maximum wind speed of 22 m/sphere with the strong wind, and was within the influence of typhoonsphere of 30 to 31.

E. The area was designated as a special disaster area in the area of the Jeonbuk-gu, the Southern-do, the Southern-do, the Southern-do, the Southern-do, the sylle, the sylle, and the bridge

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 8, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Defendant, while preparing for damage to the transmission line, performed the work on the surface of the instant land in an erroneous manner without the Plaintiff’s consent, and thereby, 41 pumo trees were extracted from ppuri sources, and the body was destroyed.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 86,835,500, which is equivalent to the damaged value of pine trees, as damages caused by the above tort, and damages for delay.

B. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant carried out the street work on the instant land for the preparation of typhoons, and the damage on pine trees claimed by the Plaintiff is only the damage caused by strong wind due to typhoons, but cannot be deemed to have a causal relationship with the Defendant’s horizontal work. Thus, the Defendant could respond to the Plaintiff’s claim in this case.