beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 288,440 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 1, 2014 to October 27, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 24, 1964, the Plaintiff’s share of 1/5 of the 4th 5 flusium C forest in Masung-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”) in the same year
2. 10.10. He shall complete the registration of ownership transfer in his future on the grounds of sale.
B. After a part of the forest of this case was cut down due to a forest fire that occurred in the vicinity, the Defendant cut down an amount equivalent to KRW 2,467,000,000, from February 201 to March 201, in the course of performing the internal adjustment of the forest fire damage area of 0.8ha using mechanical saw, etc. from the forest of this case, the forest of this case was not the forest fire damage area, but the forest fire damage area of KRW 0.2ha from 0.2 39.47 cubic meters, such as pine trees, saw trees, etc.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-2-16, 4-6, Eul 1, and Jeonnam-do's Madro-Gun Office on April 20, 2016, the result of the fact-finding inquiry conducted on April 20, 2016, the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to 493,400 won for tort (=2,467,00 x 1/5) and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant argues that where there is a strong tree in a harsh state instead of performing the work of cutting the forest of this case with the permission of the head of the Gisung-gun Forestry Cooperatives from the head of the Gisung-gun to provide services to the defendant, the profits from cutting and selling the trees are agreed to be acquired by the defendant. The defendant's failure to perform the original work instruction is also an area where the design change of the Gisung-gun or the actual work of cutting is required. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's act of cutting the trees in the above 0.2h area was due to the change of the Gisung-gun's design or the actual work of cutting the trees. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.