1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 11, 2016, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff as a property damage.

B. On July 2016, the prosecutor charged the Plaintiff with the following content: “In order to remove an existing building on the said site from Michuhol-gu Incheon, Incheon, the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) and to build a new building, the prosecutor charged the Plaintiff with the following: “In order to remove the part equivalent to 10 meters in width and 2 meters in height (hereinafter “the instant structure”) among the joint fences located on the boundary of the same building site owned by the victim B (the Defendant of this case) adjacent to the said building site.”

C. On December 21, 2017, the court of first instance cannot be readily concluded that there existed the Defendant’s joint wall on the said boundary line. As alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to conclude that there was a joint wall to distinguish the boundary between the Plaintiff’s site and the Defendant’s site. However, it is difficult to find out whether the Plaintiff constructed the Plaintiff’s building without any separation from the said joint wall, and whether the Plaintiff’s outer wall, even without any separate joint wall, actually has functioned as the boundary between the Defendant’s site and the building. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s outer wall, in fact, did not function as the “dam” as the boundary mark of the site.

Even if the above outer wall falls under the sole ownership of the plaintiff as a part of the plaintiff's building, the above outer wall is not guilty on the ground that the plaintiff's act of removing the above outer wall does not constitute "the act of damaging another's property" as an element of the crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act.

Jincheon District Court 2017 High Court 595) d.

The prosecutor appealed against this, and it is reasonable to view the structure of this case as the outer wall of the Plaintiff-owned building, because it is difficult to view it as a wall.