beta
Text
1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. C, which was planted on the ground of the land Kimhae-si, in the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the claim for delivery of pine trees indicated in the attached Form No. 4
A. In determining the cause of the claim, inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff owned and the Defendant occupied the relevant pine trees, the Defendant is obligated to deliver one of the said pine trees to the Plaintiff.
B. As the Defendant’s assertion was delegated by the Plaintiff to the management of pine trees from August 2007 to July 2017, 4.950,000 won (=550,000 won per annum x 9 years) as management expenses for pine trees, the Defendant asserted that no delivery of pine trees may be made until the said necessary expenses are repaid.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant paid 4.95 million won as management expenses for pine trees only with the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.
2. Determination as to the claim for delivery of pine trees as indicated in the attached Form No. A, B, and C
A. The plaintiff's assertion was as shown in the table below that the defendant or E purchased three pine trees, "A", "B", and "C," which were planted on the ground surface from the defendant or E, and left the defendant to the defendant. The defendant bears the duty of KRW 10,000,000 on March 9, 2008, and KRW 20,000 on March 16, 2008, when the purchase price of pine trees indicated in the separate sheet was to be delivered to the plaintiff as the owner of the above pine trees, and KRW 1,00,000 on August 16, 2007.
B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the above 'A', 'B', and 'C' only with the testimony of Gap 1, 8, 12, and 15, and witness F, and that the Plaintiff left it to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified within the scope of the above recognition.