beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff in relation to KRW 216,965,00 and KRW 60,000 among them, from November 26, 2014.
Reasons
1. Presumed facts
A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of forest land of 14,558 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) adjacent to the instant land, and Defendant E is the owner of G forest land of 9,608 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) adjacent to the instant land, and Defendant E is a director of the Defendant Co., Ltd. who currently serves as the auditor.
B. Around July 23, 2012, Defendant E filed a report on temporary use for the purpose of farming ornamental trees on the land of Defendant Company, and was granted temporary use permission until July 2, 2013. However, Defendant E, in violation of the purpose, changed the form and quality of the land in violation of the purpose and infringed on the boundary of the land and cut down the trees of the portion of the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, 34, 33, 32, and 3 of the land in the instant case (hereinafter “the damaged part”) and damaged the land.
[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 through 8 (including a branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) or the appraisal result by the head of the office of the Korea Land and Land Information Corporation;
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant E is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above illegal acts, and Defendant E is liable to compensate for them jointly with Defendant E as the employer of Defendant E.
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that “the Defendants entered into a contract with H, and H committed a tort, and thus, the Defendants are not liable to the Defendants.”
The facts that H performed the cutting of the instant land do not conflict between the parties, but as long as the Defendants ordered H to change the form and quality of the Defendant Company’s land, it is reasonable to deem that it is so-called labor contract that directs a specific act. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate as an employer (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37676, Nov. 10, 2005).