beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 89,667,782 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 25, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole in the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 through 12, 15 through 18, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 7-1, 2, and 3.
As part of the flood measures against the basin B, the Plaintiff established the C Construction Master Plan on December 20, 2006, and accepted or purchased the B-Myeon, E-Myeon, and F-Myeon.
B. The Defendant laid down trees in the above public works implementation zone without permission, and the Plaintiff accused the Defendant.
C. (1) The prosecutor of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the Defendant with theft, etc. as the District Public Prosecutor’s Office 2013 Go-dan3314.
(2) On January 30, 2015, the District Court found the Defendant guilty of the thief crime as follows and sentenced the Defendant to one year’s imprisonment.
In addition to larceny against the defendant, the court found the defendant guilty of violating the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and the Act on Protection and Investigation of Buried Cultural Heritage.
(3) From January 10, 2013 to February 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) cut off 14 lots of G forest, etc.; (b) four lots of land, including Macheon-si, Macheon-si, H forest, and 16 lots of land, including 146,113.621 square meters in total; (c) night tree 1,028 and 2,48 parts of land, 45 parts of land, 567 parts of land, and 736 parts of land, which are the State owned by the victim; and (d) cut off with arbitrarily cut 4,824 parts of land, including 16 pieces of land, including Macheon-si, Macheon-si, Macheon-si, Ma. 146,13.621 square meters in total, which are the State owned by the victim.
(4) The Defendant appealed as the District Court No. 2015No489, and the District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on June 30, 2015. The Defendant appealed as the Supreme Court Decision No. 2015Do10925, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 10, 2015.
(5) The Defendant’s unauthorized timbering area (hereinafter “instant timbering area”) recognized in the above judgment is as follows.