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
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the alteration or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence
The "this Court" of the first instance judgment is collectively referred to as the "court of the first instance."
The following shall be added to the 7th page of the first instance judgment:
1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are co-owners of the C orchard 20,805 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant orchard”) in Ansan-si with a penalty land between them.
2) In the instant orchard, the Plaintiff was a fruit farmer, and the Defendant was a vinyl farmer in the instant orchard. 3) On April 16, 2017, the Defendant destroyed the instant orchard, etc., which is the pipe installed by the Plaintiff, in the course of operating Trackbs in the vicinity of the vinyl owned by the Defendant in the instant orchard, while engaging in the operation of Trackter in the vicinity of the vinyl owned by the Defendant in the instant orchard.
4) On May 2, 2017, the Defendant replaced the Plaintiff’s above PE water pipes, and the Plaintiff’s niringler 1,900 on May 6, 2017. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence 2, and 3 (each statement, including each number, and the purport of the whole pleadings).
B. The following is added to the second instance judgment No. 16 of the first instance judgment. “The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s installation of a water supply facility itself is unlawful, but the lawfulness of the installation of a water supply facility does not affect the establishment of the above liability for damages.
The third party of the judgment of the first instance is added as follows. "The plaintiff claims that there are foreign substances up to the date inside the water supply pipe so it is necessary to replace the water supply pipe with the entire water supply pipe. However, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the necessity to replace the water supply pipe with the whole water supply pipe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
"Defendant" in the third third instance of the judgment of the court of first instance.