beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 115,200,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 10, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The Plaintiff owns the land E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Defendant D owns the F land adjacent to the land E (hereinafter referred to as “F land”).
Defendant B is a person engaged in construction machinery contracting and leasing business under the trade name of “G,” and Defendant C is a person engaged in mid-term rental business under the trade name of “H.”
Around October 2013, Defendant D requested Defendant B to perform the works of removing mulberry trees planted on F’s land. Defendant B accepted the above works in KRW 550,000,000 and performed the said works on the spot with Defendant D around October 10, 2013.
However, on October 10, 2013, Defendant D called Defendant B to “the hospital arrives at the site at around 11:00, and this will proceed first.” Accordingly, Defendant B instructed I, an engineer of scambags, to carry out mulberry tree removal works using the ruptures (RBEX140W, 13.7t) owned by Defendant C, and ordered I to see and remove rupture trees owned by the Plaintiff listed in the land E by mistake.
As a result, I damaged the 1,440 pactines owned by the plaintiff listed in the land E (hereinafter "pactines of this case").
【Partial Grounds for Recognition】 According to the above fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 4-2, or the overall purport of oral pleadings and arguments, the defendant Eul should remove the mulberry trees planted in F land according to the contract concluded with the defendant Eul, but the defendant Eul should remove the mulberry trees planted in F land under the contract entered into with the defendant Eul. However, since the plaintiff damaged the pine trees of this case owned by the plaintiff due to negligence not distinguishing the mulberry trees planted in F land from E, barring special circumstances, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the scope of damages is against the Health Council and the AppraiserJ.