손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act by deciding on the Plaintiff’s primary claim; and (b) based on the conjunctive claim and additional assertion at the trial of the
2. The addition;
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 1,816,519,99, which was obtained by collecting earth and rocks from the instant real estate without a right to collect earth and rocks from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 201. (2) The instant lease agreement is valid. The Defendant was entitled to collect earth and rocks from the instant real estate based on the instant lease agreement. As seen in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on a different premise is without merit, without any need to further examine.
B. The judgment on the plaintiff's other assertion 1) accepted the defendant's assertion of ratification in the judgment of the court of first instance, but for the following reasons, the lease contract of this case was made by the defendant actively by the defendant in breach of trust against the plaintiff F and K. The lease contract of this case constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act by stealing the land from a person without any authority, and constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, and ② a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness concluded by using F and K's rash and experience, and constitutes an unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act regardless of the plaintiff'
B) As to the instant real estate, the sales contract concluded on August 19, 2010 between the original Defendant and the original Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
The defendant is responsible for collecting earth and stone illegally.