beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the judgment of the first instance is that “Tgu District Court No. 2015No230” in Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as “Tgu High Court No. 2015No230” in Section 17 of the judgment of the first instance, and the Defendant’s assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the supplementary or additional determination under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s payment of the instant deposit was justifiable, since the instant land was damaged due to the Plaintiff’s unlawful collection of earth and rocks, and thus, the obligation to restore the said land was committed against the Plaintiff, and ② was impossible to restore the relevant land if the instant land was not restored.
(1) However, the Plaintiff: (a) rendered a judgment of innocence on the facts charged that “The Plaintiff extracted earth and rocks without obtaining permission from the competent authorities on the land and collected earth and rocks without obtaining permission from the competent authorities; and (b) stolen forest products owned by the Defendant, etc., the Defendant, etc.” [Tgu District Court Decision 2013Gohap74, 2014Gohap30, Daegu High Court 2015No230]; and (c) the said judgment became final and conclusive. In light of the foregoing, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was illegally
It is difficult to recognize that the land in this case was damaged or otherwise damaged. ② The evidence submitted by the Defendant (including each description or image of the evidence No. 13 through No. 15 submitted in the trial) is insufficient to recognize that the restoration of the land in this case was necessarily required for the restoration of related land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the above assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are accepted.