beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 3, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired 46/208 shares of co-ownership of 688 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On January 4, 2010, the Defendant acquired co-ownership shares of 162/208 of the instant land.
C. The Defendant owned a lot of land besides the instant land, and around May 7, 2012, the instant land was packed and newly constructed a distribution center in the vicinity, and used the instant land as a parking lot for the logistics center.
The instant land was expropriated in the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on December 6, 2016.
E. The rent for the Plaintiff’s co-ownership from May 7, 2012 to November 30, 2016 is KRW 12,970,539 (i.e., the rent from May 7, 2012 to January 31, 2013; KRW 2,757,710 from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014; KRW 2,860,420 from February 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016; KRW 2,789,59 from February 31, 2013 to January 31, 2014; and KRW 420 from February 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016 to January 31, 2016; and
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, 13 evidence, Eul's 5 and 6 evidence (including branch numbers) and images, the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was cultivating the relevant tree on the instant land, but the Defendant had been arbitrarily removed and the distribution center, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for damages caused by the tort (damage equivalent to the value of the tree, and damage equivalent to the amount of capital gains tax that the Plaintiff suffered by preventing the Plaintiff from receiving any benefit of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland).
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated pine trees on the land of this case only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 and Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 10, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant removed them.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's claim is without merit.
3...