logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나1984
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

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of Pyeongtaek-si Cze-si and 500 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land,” and, in the case of the same Ri, the Plaintiff carried out the construction of a four-story multi-household housing on the land above (hereinafter “instant construction”) around 2014.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the E field 17 square meters per 127 square meters, etc. between the Plaintiff’s land and the D road, which is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's assertion suffered damages of KRW 10,690,000 in total, including the cost of reinforcement work, KRW 70,000,000, and the cost of reinforcement work, KRW 10,690,000 in total, for the purpose of obtaining permission for the construction work in this case, the plaintiff committed a tort that prevents the plaintiff from performing the construction work in this case by destroying concrete packaging installed on the land owned by the defendant and planting. Accordingly, the plaintiff had no choice but to suspend the construction work in this case during the construction obstruction period, and the plaintiff has to pay for the construction work in this case without the defendant's permission to use the land in this case.

B. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, 12, 13, and Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10 (including virtual numbers) and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① the plaintiff obtained permission for the instant construction project and entered the land owned by the defendant as D, which is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si, and obtain permission for the instant construction project.

arrow