beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) planting the trees listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the trees of this case”) on the land on which the Defendant’s claim was made (hereinafter “instant land”) and managing the trees of this case for about 10 years, at the Defendant’s recommendation; and (b) the Defendant, despite the fact that the ownership of the said trees is owned by the Plaintiff, has owned them.
C. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 as well as delayed damages, on the ground that he/she had suffered serious mental pain on the wind that the Defendant asserts that he/she owns the said trees as his/her own ownership.
The argument is asserted.
B. (1) The plaintiff's planting of the trees of this case on the ground of the land of this case which the plaintiff owned by the defendant does not dispute between the parties, and considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendant on May 16, 2008 and the plaintiff on the land of this case, and the plaintiff are responsible for the continuous maintenance and management of the landscape trees until the expropriation of the above land, and 11,000,000, out of the total amount of the compensation for planting trees upon expropriation, 50% of the plaintiff's total amount of the compensation for planting trees, 40% of the defendant's 10% of the total amount of the compensation for planting trees, and 10% of the E, respectively.
(2) On the other hand, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
In other words, on April 28, 2008, the Defendant lent KRW 50,000,00 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 50,000,000 in the future on the same day, and as of May 15, 2008, the Defendant and the notary public issued the said promissory note with respect to the said promissory note.