beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,576,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 15, 2017 to January 10, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land of 8,711 square meters in Msan-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Defendant is the owner of 29,500 square meters in Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.
C. In around 2015, the Defendant felled the trees planted on the Defendant’s land, and was engaged in the alteration of the form and quality of the said land, the Defendant misleads the Plaintiff into being part of the Defendant’s land, which was part of the instant land, and cut the relevant land after cutting down pine trees, etc. planted on the ground of the instant land.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant tort”). [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 7, and the result of the commission of appraisal to Eul Co., Ltd., the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant damaged trees and land owned by the plaintiff through the tort of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 60,000,000 won (property damage amounting to 40,000,000 won and consolation money amount to 20,000,000) and damages for delay.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) After the illegal act in this case, the Defendant planted trees on the land in this case and recovered the Plaintiff’s damage by completing the land restoration work. 2) The market price of the land in this case was increased due to cutting of the land in this case by the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s damage related thereto does not exist.
3. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant, without the plaintiff's consent, fells the trees of the land in this case, which is the original owner of the land in this case, and cut the ground of the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the tort, and the evidence (Evidence B No. 1 and 2) submitted by the defendant is alone after the tort in this case.