손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts” from the second to the seventh to the fifth to the fifth to the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserted that he leased ten parcels of land, including E and F, and eight parcels of land, in the Sungsung-si, the Plaintiff cultivated the trees, such as strop-type tree, knee-knee-ke-ke-kne-ke-ke-ke-kak-kak-kaking, etc. on the said land
The Plaintiff received compensation of KRW 11,255,00 from the Defendant for losses for trees on the land B and C due to the instant construction work, but the Defendant, separately after the completion of the instant construction work, performed the construction of the 77 line facilities of the general national highway, which was located on the land B and C, and opened a road after arbitrarily collecting and removing the trees indicated in the current status of trees damage, without legitimate compensation consultation or procedures, around 2005.
Therefore, the defendant gains profit from the above trees equivalent to the value of the above trees without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered loss, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 467,039,600 won, which is the sum of the values of the trees stated in the report on the status of damage from trees, and the legal interest and delay damages.
3. As seen earlier, the fact that the Suwon National Road Maintenance and Construction Office under the Defendant’s control paid compensation to the Plaintiff’s trees planted on the land incorporated into the construction area while performing the instant construction project and lawfully acquired them. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant collected the trees owned by the Plaintiff while conducting the road construction project separately from the instant construction project, and that the Plaintiff cultivated trees as indicated in the list of tree damage status at the time of the said construction project (attached Form), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is further examined.