beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 350,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from November 29, 2018 to April 24, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 21, 24, 25, 29, 30 (including each number), Eul's evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings);
A. The Defendant is the owner of the Kugdong-gu Cdong (hereinafter “Cdong”) 86m2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”). The Plaintiff is operating a place of business in the E large 304m2 adjacent to the said land.
B. Vehicles entering the direction of the main entrance and exit of the Plaintiff’s workplace entered the F 391 square meters of the road (hereinafter “instant road”) via part of the Defendant’s land.
C. Upon the occurrence of the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the boundary of the Defendant’s land at the beginning of February 2016, the Defendant installed a steel fence on the boundary of the Defendant’s land, thereby making it impossible to pass the said vehicle.
As a result, the defendant was prosecuted for the obstruction of general traffic, and was sentenced to a conviction by the Suwon District Court 2017No3232, and the above judgment became final and conclusive in the Supreme Court 2017Do1962.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion interfered with the passage of the Plaintiff’s workplace due to the Defendant’s installation of a steel pent, and the Plaintiff suffered damages from the Plaintiff’s disbursement of KRW 700,000 to the construction cost for the instant road portion adjacent to the instant land for vehicle traffic.
In addition, the plaintiff's sales revenue was reduced due to the defendant's steel pent installed, and the plaintiff seems to have suspended the operation of the place of business and other intangible losses occurred.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 10,700,000 (=700,000 consolation money of KRW 10,000).
B. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, since the passage of the Plaintiff’s workplace was obstructed by the Defendant’s construction of the Defendant’s steel pent, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort.
C. (1) Oral evidence prior to determining the cost of road works, and the statements in Gap evidence No. 27 and No. 28.