beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.04 2019나4219

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 11:

A. C, the Defendant’s spouse, owned the instant building E (hereinafter “instant building”) in collaboration with D, and around March 4, 2016, a voluntary auction procedure for the instant building (U.S. District Court Sungnam Branch Branch Branch) began. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building by fully paying the sale price.

B. On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an order to transfer real estate with the Defendant, who was occupying the instant building, to obtain a decision of acceptance on October 14, 2016 (U.S. District Court Sungnam support G), and the Defendant separated or removed the hacker pole, stairs iron rail railing, box, wall board, remote area, sunbing, sunbing, toilet pipe, toilet pipe, five even, shower, front light position, electric light, electric cable, boiler, boiler breaker, boiler, boiler, kitchen, kitchen, cream, etc. from November 21, 2016 to December 2016, the Defendant was unable to recover the human test cost, etc. spent on the instant building.

C. Around July 6, 2017, the Defendant was indicted for causing property damage and theft. On December 13, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment on the charge of larceny on the following charges: (a) the Defendant’s first instance judgment (U.S. District Court 2017No. 1785), on the following grounds: (b) the Defendant promptly sentenced the Defendant to the charge of causing property damage and damage to string columns, stairs iron bars, railings, barriers, remote areas, sun-dried crowdfunding, toileting, and toilet pipes; (c) the Defendant convicted him/her of the larceny of the larceny, and sentenced him/her for four months, on the thief’s imprisonment with prison labor.

In the appellate court (Yi District Court 2017No9510), the prosecutor is the defendant's tap, 5 even visit, shower, and shower.