손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,968,340 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from February 1, 2012 to September 25, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
1. The Defendant, on January 2012, 201, laid down the Plaintiff’s dry field owned by the Plaintiff, which was planted at this place in the Plaintiff’s dry field owned by Gangwonwon, with a total of KRW 4,766,940 in total, and an aggregate of KRW 201,400 in total, market value of other active trees 51 weeks (hereinafter “instant trees”) using the electric saw, without the Plaintiff’s consent.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 5, appraiser D's appraisal result, purpose of the whole pleading
2. Determination
A. The trees planted in the dry field owned by the plaintiff are owned by the plaintiff, in conformity with the land unless they are planted by another person’s title or are indicated by a separate scenic method.
As to the trees of this case, there is no evidence that the trees of this case were planted by another person’s source of authority or indicated by another person’s separate method of seal, and therefore, the said trees are deemed to be owned by the plaintiff.
The Defendant arbitrarily cut the trees of this case owned by the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s consent constitutes a tort that infringes on the Plaintiff’s ownership. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the market value of the trees of this case.
As to this, the defendant asserts that with the consent of the plaintiff, the trees of this case were cut, or some of the above trees were cut down as part of the simplified project.
However, the following circumstances revealed by Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), and ① the defendant alleged that he was aware of the above facts regarding the defendant's consent prior to the punishment of the trees of this case, and Eul and F stated that the defendant did not directly have any telephone conversations between the defendant and the plaintiff in the investigation process and related criminal trials, and even referring to G's related criminal trial examination record, G's defendant stated that he did not directly have any telephone conversations between the defendant and the plaintiff.