beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.03 2015나18420

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 42,513,504 won against the Defendants and 18,679,161 won against the Plaintiff B and each of them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2003, the Plaintiffs entered into a sale and purchase contract with and with and from the non-party 1,484m2 as the introduction of Defendant F on June 10, 2003. On September 9, 2003, Plaintiff A entered into a sale and purchase contract with the non-party 5,620/11,484m2, and Plaintiff B entered into a sale and purchase contract with the non-party 5,58/11,484m2, and Plaintiff C completed the registration of ownership as to the non-party 3,306/11,484m2, and Plaintiff C entered into a sale and purchase contract with the non-party 4 on June 24, 2013 as to the non-party 5,58m2, K 3,306m2, and 306m2, as to the above land owned by the non-party 3,306m28,203.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) b.

1) Codefendant G was entrusted by M with the disposal of construction waste, such as cement, earth and sand, and waste water generated at the construction site of the subway line located in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Ngu. From September 1, 2003 to October 6, 2003, Defendant E, the above G, and H were charged with violating the Wastes Control Act by Defendant E, the above G, and the Seoul District Court on December 9, 2003, and were charged with the disposal of construction waste. From September 4, 2003 to October 14, 200, Defendant G buried the instant land and its neighboring land without permission. Defendant E, the above G, and H were charged with a violation of the Wastes Control Act by using the instant land and its neighboring land from September 4, 2003 to October 14, 2003, or by mixing the instant condition of the construction waste reclamation with the instant land, the instant condition of the construction waste reclamation restriction zone, and the instant condition of the reclamation of the said land by mixing it with G, the instant condition of the instant land.

A judgment of conviction was rendered as a violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(c) Wastes;