Damages by expanding the tortfeasor's illegal act or together with the tortfeasor's illegal act

(2) If there is a reason to assume the responsibility of the perpetrator in the event of the occurrence of the

It is merely the purpose of taking into account.

The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The issue is that the defendant has continuously opposed the expansion work of the Masan Repair Association, the telegraph of the plaintiff's association for the past five years, so the plaintiff is entitled to the construction work first, and the plaintiff is paid 54,765 won as the defendant's land price, and the amount is not equivalent to the land price. However, according to the records of each evidence cited by the judgment of the court below, it is sufficient to find the fact that 54,765 won as the cost of the Masan Repair Association was paid as the land price of this case as the time of the original judgment, not as the defendant's secret payment, but as the time of the original judgment. Ultimately, the plaintiff cannot be admitted merely because it criticizes evidence preparation

(2) Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the facts established by the court below based on evidence, 1,367 No. 1,245-1,245-1,367-1,5-15-1,24-15-15-15-15-15-15-2-15-2 shall be owned by the defendant, and the remaining 1,214-2-2-1,214-2-2 shall be owned by another person, and the land shall not be a matter of fact, but shall be registered in the farmland ledger kept in Ansan-gu at the time when the land was owned by the defendant, and at the same time it was occupied and managed by the defendant for a multi-year period, at the same time, the defendant shall be deemed to have been the whole owner of the land, and therefore, the defendant purchased the above land by 54,765-2-2-1,000-2-2 with the name of the defendant.

However, it is unnecessary to take such circumstances into account in determining the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant even if the Gasan Repair Cooperatives did not pay close attention to the purchase of the above land. If why is why is, Article 396 of the Civil Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the tort, is merely the purport of taking into account the victim's negligence in the event that the victim's negligence caused the tort or caused the damage in addition to the tort committed by the perpetrator, if there are circumstances that could cause the tortfeasor's responsibility to compensate for the tortfeasor. Therefore, in this case, the existence of such circumstance is not examined in detail and the decision of comparative negligence was made with the fact that there was negligence as stated in its reasoning, but it is not reasonable to judge comparative negligence with the misapprehension of the legal principle of comparative negligence or incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against this point is reversed, and that part of the lawsuit against the plaintiff is remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-su (Presiding Justice)