beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.09.13 2016가단18380

공사대금

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the attached sheet No. 29, 28, 27.27.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a D-gi 493 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land owned by the Plaintiff”) and a house on its ground in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and the Defendant is the owner of a land adjacent to the said site, which is the land of the third party 1,012 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-owned land”).

B. The Defendant’s land was located at a higher place than the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff, and there was a stone shed near the Plaintiff’s land. However, the Plaintiff installed a concrete fence on May 21, 2015, in part of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, on the grounds that the Plaintiff might collapse, if rained, sand sand flows out from the Defendant’s land.

The part on which a wall intrudes the land owned by the defendant shall be as indicated in the attached Form.

C. On December 17, 2015 and February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a corrective order ordering the removal of the wall on the grounds that the installation of the wall was unlawful by the captain-head of the Gun.

On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 300,000,000, on the ground that the Plaintiff installed a fence in a development-restricted zone as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 9, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) In a case where a stone shed installed on the land owned by the Defendant, which was located on the land owned by the Defendant, is not only at risk of collapse, but also at risk of soil erosion into the land owned by the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to install a fence, but the Defendant provided part of the site for the installation of a fence and agreed to bear the installation cost. The installation cost is KRW 8,591,000.

3. In addition, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,176,700 as expenses for restoring the damaged food storage containers and soil and sand removal expenses, etc. due to earth and sand that flows out from the land owned by the Defendant.