logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2014.06.26 2013가단10112
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the Defendant extracted one part of pine trees on the land B (hereinafter “instant pine trees”) on the land at the time of the formation of the foundation is not a dispute between the parties.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The instant pine trees are pine trees owned by the Plaintiff that were extracted from CF to be planted on the land B at the time when the Plaintiff was removed from CF, and the Defendant extracted the instant pine trees around May 20, 2010, and thus, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the said tort (=2,700,000 expenses of KRW 2,60,000,000, KRW 1,500,000, KRW 2,700,000, KRW 1,200,000, KRW 1,20,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 25,000, KRW00, KRW 000, KRW 3,000, and KRW 3,000, KRW 3,000).

B. As to the gist of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the instant pine trees were donated by Nonparty D.

3. Determination

A. It is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant pine trees were planted in B’s land at the time when the Plaintiff scood from KRW C when the Plaintiff scood from KRW C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Even if the instant pine trees were extracted from C Japanese Won and planted on B land at the time of third party, trees are fixtures attached thereto and do not constitute the object of ownership independently. Thus, in the instant case where there is no proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of land B at the time of third party, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the owner of the instant pine trees. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

C. Having selected the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff has any right to the instant pine trees, and the Defendant’s extraction of the instant pine trees infringes on the Plaintiff’s right.

arrow