logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.06.03 2014가합7353
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 362,562,323 to Plaintiff A, KRW 165,023,918 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 213,279,544 to Plaintiff D.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 10, 2003, the Plaintiffs acquired the Plaintiff’s land ownership: (a) concluded a sales contract with Defendant F’s introduction; (b) from Nonparty I and four other persons, to purchase the said land from Janyang-gu J. 11,484 square meters (2,558 square meters, J. 2,58 square meters, 5,620 square meters, 5,620 square meters, and L. 3,306 square meters owned by Plaintiff D; (c) on September 9, 2003, Plaintiff A and four other persons, to purchase the said land; and (d) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Plaintiff A’s share as to Plaintiff A’s share, 5,620/11,484, and Plaintiff B’s share as to Plaintiff B’s share, 2,581,41,484, 1364, 1384, 1486.

B. (1) Defendant G was entrusted with the disposal of construction waste, such as cement, earth and sand, and waste water mixed at the construction site of the subway line located in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, and Defendant G buried the instant land and its neighboring land without permission between September 1, 2003 and October 6, 2003; Defendant E, G, and H were charged with a violation of the Wastes Control Act, etc. (hereinafter “previous criminal case”) with M, under the Seoul District Court Decision 2003No9420, Dec. 9, 2003; Defendant G, and H used the instant land and its neighboring land from September 4, 2003 to October 14, 2003; Defendant G did not obtain permission from the above court as to the instant land and its neighboring land; Defendant G and H violated the terms and conditions of the instant Construction Waste Control Act; and Defendant H’s land to be reclaimed with the height of 3,400 square meters and 50 square meters; and the instant land to be reclaimed with G, 2008 square meters and cement.

A judgment of conviction was rendered as a violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(c)the existence of wastes;

arrow