1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The warehouse and the bridge boo-dong, Jindo-gun, and 2 lots of land above the ground, including Jindo-gun B, are buildings on which the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 9, 201, and D are the father of the Plaintiff.

B. On or after August 30, 2012, the Defendant performed the work to dispose of the remaining wastes (the Defendant’s assertion) or remove (the Plaintiff’s assertion) of the instant oil refining station on the ground that the instant oil refining was destroyed due to the typhoon’s influence.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by typhoons around August 2012 and only damaged the air ventilation part of the instant static factory at the entrance of the factory, and the main factory building was not damaged.

Nevertheless, the Defendant removed all of the instant depots without permission.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek 63,682,000 won calculated by subtracting the ventilation ventilation part damaged by typhoon from the value of the 193,682,00 won of the building of the 1963,682,00 won of the 1963,682,00 won of the 19663,682,00 won and damages for delay.

B. In August 2012, the Defendant’s assertion that most of the instant static districts were destroyed by typhoons, and that this is causing danger to residence, the remainder was adjusted according to the civil petition filed by nearby residents, not the removal of the static building without permission.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 8, and witness D and E of the trial witness, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant removed the refined building of this case without permission even if the refined building of this case was not destroyed as alleged by the plaintiff.

1 Jindo Do-do-gun is large, F, G, and H, a neighboring resident of the Y of the Y of this case, immediately after typhoon Ying.