beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,709,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 19, 2015 to April 28, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 2004, the Defendant and C, the representative director of the Defendant, were issued a summary order of KRW 3,18(1)4, and Article 90(1) of the former Forestry Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, Act No. 7678, Aug. 4, 2005) on December 24, 2004, on the ground that they illegally damaged the area of 837 square meters of D forest land owned by the Plaintiff without obtaining permission from the competent authority (hereinafter “instant forest”).
B. On November 10, 201, the Defendant was issued a disposition of suspending indictment against a violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act by a prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office on November 10, 201 on the ground that the Defendant illegally damaged the area of 892 square meters among the instant forest land without obtaining permission around October 20
[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4-1, 2, and 3-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 3, fact-finding on the realization market of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. According to the fact of the recognition of the claim for damages as to the damaged part of forest land around July 2004, the Defendant, around July 2004, destroyed 837 square meters of the instant forest owned by the Plaintiff, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
In light of the above, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for damages has expired by prescription, and comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the arguments in Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff requested a cadastral boundary survey to the Korea Cadastral Corporation on February 28, 2007 and became aware of the fact that the defendant damaged part of the forest of this case. On April 5, 2007, the plaintiff sent a certificate of the contents of the request for the separation of lot numbers and purchase of divided lands, rather than the land compensation proposed by the defendant to the defendant.