logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.08.23 2017가합25660
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, F, and G own 1/4 shares, H 4/28 shares, and the Plaintiffs own 1/28 shares, respectively, in respect of the land of the forest E- 7,537 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

B. The forest of this case is used as a mountain for the plaintiffs and their family members.

C. On May 8, 2017, the boundary surveying of the instant forest was conducted. Around that time, part of the trees in the instant forest was damaged. On May 19, 2017, on the ground that the owner of the instant forest was damaged by the forest, the Goyang-si head issued an advance notice of administrative disposition to order the restoration of the forest to its original state on the ground that the forest was damaged by the owner of the instant forest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 9 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant forest was damaged by damaging the instant forest land and thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ ownership of trees by conducting a boundary survey on the instant forest land on May 2017, 201 without consultation with the Plaintiffs, including conducting a horizontal coal work, etc.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 67,100,000 won and damages for delay corresponding to the plaintiffs' share ratio among the total costs of KRW 1,878,80,800,000 necessary for restoring the forest of this case to the original state.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant damaged the forest of this case only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

① There is no direct evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant damaged the forest of this case, and the case in which the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for the crime of damaging the forest of this case.

arrow