logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2019.01.30 2017가단36924
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff leased a rice field D 4,575 square meters (hereinafter “the ginseng field of this case”) under the Plaintiff’s ownership and cultivated ginseng on the relevant ground. The Defendant, as the owner of the land of this case, the land of this case owned by the Defendant from December 2, 2016 to June 2017, is the owner of the land of this case, 8,744 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. Among the instant ginseng dry field and the Defendant’s land, there exist each of F-owned land of G 7,742 square meters prior to G, H 489 square meters prior to H, 202 square meters prior to J, 218 square meters prior to K, 324 square meters prior to L, and 3,398 square meters (hereinafter “F-owned land”).

C. Around March 2017, F obtained permission for the development of farmland with the aim of improving 7,742 square meters in relation to the land owned by the Defendant, which is adjacent to the land owned by the Defendant, from the Hanju-si (hereinafter “F”), and then conducted cutting, clearing, and flating construction of the said land (hereinafter “instant flating construction”). D.

The construction of the site of this case and the person who jointly performed the flatization construction of this case shall be M.

E. The ginseng field of this case and the Defendant’s land were put on the Nil-si Nil-si located on June 26, 2013.9m of daily water 13.9m on June 26, 2017; May 1m, 2017; June 27, 2017; June 29.5m on June 29, 2017; and November 73.3m on July 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, 10, and 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant, who implements the construction of the instant site creation project, has a duty of care to prevent large volume of soil generated from the instant site construction project from leaking into nearby land along with rainwater.

However, the defendant neglected this and carried out construction work consecutively, and on June 26, 2017.

arrow