beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단249728

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s Dong-dong land owned by the Plaintiff with a 370 square meters of C forest land and 168 square meters of D forest land. Defendant E, the Plaintiff’s Dong-si, in collusion with Defendant F, G, and completed the transfer of ownership in the future of Defendant B, one of his wife, around 2007, under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership in 207.

Therefore, Defendant E, F, and G should compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages 90,500,000 won.

B. Defendant B’s unlawful removal of an unauthorized house on the ground of H (A), Dong-dong, Dong-si, Plaintiff’s ownership, and thus, Defendant B should compensate for the Plaintiff’s loss 64.5 million won.

C. The Defendants shall pay consolation money of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff regarding the aforementioned tort.

As above, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 176 million (i.e., KRW 95 million) as damages (i.e., KRW 64 million) but seek payment of KRW 20 million as partial claims.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to evidence Nos. 5-2, 11, and 21, Defendant B submitted a guarantee jointly signed by Defendant F, Defendant G, and J in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 7500, May 26, 2005) and completed registration of ownership on December 4, 2007. The above guarantee letter states that Defendant B purchased each of the above land from K on December 25, 197 and owned it jointly and severally, and that Defendant B removed the above land on or around May 2013.

However, the descriptions of Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6, 9, and 10 are written falsely by defendant E, F, and G alone.

It is insufficient to recognize the housing removed by Defendant B as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is true.