손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. On September 11, 1995, the Plaintiff asserted that he leased a parcel of land outside the B in the Yan-si (hereinafter “instant parcel of land”) from the Defendant, and planted on the ground the trees worth KRW 38,240,000 (hereinafter “the trees of this case”) at the market price, such as pine trees and white red, etc., and damaged the trees of this case while performing road extension works on March 14, 201.
The above Corporation was implemented with the consent of the defendant, and the defendant has a duty to notify the person in charge of the above consent that he should obtain separate consent from the plaintiff who is the owner of the trees of this case, and in spite of the duty to notify the plaintiff in advance and to prevent damage, it neglected to do so, thereby causing such damage to the plaintiff
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the market price of the trees of this case to the plaintiff as damages.
2. In full view of the overall purport of evidence evidence No. 1 and records, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the land of this case and leased the term of lease from February 15, 1995 to December 31, 2002, and that when the plants cultivated are harvested due to the expiration of the term of the lease, the land of this case shall be adjusted and returned to the lessor as a fence-friendly and return to the lessor. However, the Plaintiff did not appear to have taken measures to extend the term of lease for the land of this case thereafter, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had the right to continue planting trees on the land of this case owned by the Defendant.
Furthermore, it is difficult to presume that the instant trees may be damaged due to the said construction works, and it is difficult to deem that there is an obligation to notify the person in charge to obtain the Plaintiff’s consent, or to notify the Plaintiff of the construction works in advance.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the above duty of disclosure is without merit without further review.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.