(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.08.31 2016고단1606

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.08.31 2016고단1606

재물손괴

Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

. The applicant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who was the owner of G land (hereinafter “instant land”). Defendant A is the real estate broker acting as a broker for the sale and purchase of the instant land, and the victim F is the owner of the instant land indicated by means of planting trees and lighting.

On August 31, 2015, the Defendants promised to dispose of trees owned by the victim of the instant land in the course of trading the instant land in the Franchising land to H, the purchaser of the instant land, but were willing to cut down trees on the instant land, which would not be treated.

Accordingly, Defendant B paid Defendant A KRW 3,00,000 of the cost of felling trees on the instant land. On January 30, 2016, Defendant A mobilized human fathers from G at Sinung-si on January 30, 2016, Defendant B cut 27 shares, including KRW 71,166,384 of the market price owned by the victim who was planted on the instant land, KRW 71,16,384 of the market price owned by the victim.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to damage trees owned by the victim and thereby harmed their utility.

2. According to the evidence duly examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the victim for the delivery of the instant land, etc., the name of the instant building, and the removal of the instant building. The victim filed for the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant building on the instant land, etc. as a counterclaim [the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2013Na16602, the main lawsuit, the group 13730, the group 13730 (Counterclaim)]. ② The instant court accepted the Defendant B’s claim on the main lawsuit, and dismissed the victim’s counterclaim.

At the time, the victim claimed that the lease of the instant land, etc. and the building on the instant land were the relics of the victim, but did not claim that the trees on the instant land were the relics of the victim.

(3) The injured party appealed against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, but the appellate court.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.05.10 2016노6201

-수원지방법원안양지원 2014.07.30 2014가단572

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.19 2016노216

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.03 2014가단29681

-광주지방법원 2018.02.01 2017노1420