beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts [based on recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 8, 22 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply);
(7) Each entry in Eul evidence 7, the appraiser C’s appraisal result, the purport of the entire pleadings
A. On June 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the lease of a fishery license (F, G) and its fishing ground owned by the said fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “instant fishing ground”). On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a move-in report to H, which is the area of the said fishing village fraternity, with the said fishing village fraternity, and entered into the E fishing village fraternity.
B. From November 2014, Defendant Daiung-gun had undertaken a J development project in the first place near the fishing ground of this case, the Jeonnam-gun, Daung-gun, and on May 27, 2015, Defendant Goung-gun entered into a contract for the construction of the foundation for the development project (hereinafter “instant construction”).
2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined that, from 2013 to 2015, K purchased 1.1 million US dollars from K to 380 million US dollars and cultivated the uniforms by spraying them to the fishing ground of the instant case. Since all of the b,181,536,40 won that the Plaintiff suffered as a result of the instant construction project, and all of the b,181,536,40 won that the Plaintiff suffered as a result of joint tort occurred in the latter part of 2015, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants should jointly compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of damages incurred as a result of the Plaintiff’s joint tort, namely, KRW 4,126,263,964 - Labor expense of KRW 1,650,50,505,586 - Additional fishery expense of KRW 294,221,938.
However, in light of the following circumstances where evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 14 through 18, and 26 were stated, witness K’s testimony, and appraiser C’s appraisal result, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased a uniform uniform from K prior to the completion of the instant construction work, and distributed it to the fishing ground of this case, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without need to further examine.
① The Plaintiff is K. H.