logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.12.22 2015나9687
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Even when examining the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons why the court should explain this case are the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or additional determination as follows. As such, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 2-b of the judgment of the court of first instance: (b) of the judgment of the court of first instance: “It is appropriate to see that the Plaintiff solely owned or solely owned the instant private trees prior to the auction of this case, even if the Plaintiff owned the instant private trees prior to the auction of this case,” Article 2-b of the judgment of the court of first instance, which deleted from the part “(Article 5) 2-b of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8)” (Article 2-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance which deleted from the part “(Article 5).” (Article 6-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) “The Plaintiff appears to have any mother or the Plaintiff’s premise (Article 6-2).”

B. 1) The special agreement between co-owners on the use and profit-making of the jointly owned property between co-owners is naturally succeeded to a specific successor of co-owners. The Plaintiff has cultivated fruit trees with the approval of the instant death and planting of trees from D, a 1/2 equity right holder of the instant real estate, with the approval of the instant death and planting of trees.

Therefore, the defendant succeeding to the above D's share is obligated to allow the plaintiff to use and benefit from the land of this case aiming at owning the instant company trees.

Nevertheless, the Defendant destroyed the instant fruit trees and thereby inflicted damages on the Plaintiff equivalent to the market price.

arrow