beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the fence installed by the victim of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles correspond to the Defendants’ land, the Defendants did not destroy another’s property.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendants and the victim living adjacent to them had a dispute regarding the defendants' access to the housing through the instant alley from around 1997, and the defendant installed the fence of this case so that the victim could not use the instant alley at his own expense while the dispute remains in place. The defendants who discovered the wall of this case found the wall of this case can immediately recognize the fact that the above a wall of this case was destroyed by the rupture, etc. on the ground that the above a wall of this case was obstructed by traffic.
However, the grounds that the Civil Act recognizes “competing” as a ground for acquiring ownership are that, in a case where the owner appears to combine two or more different objects, and it is impossible or extremely difficult to separate them in light of social norms, restoration to the original state is disadvantageous to the social economy. The Civil Act, separate from the provisions on the above conformity, provides that “the boundary marks, fences, ditches, etc. installed on the boundary shall be presumed to be co-owned by the adjoining neighbors, but this provision shall not apply in a case where the boundary marks, fences, ditches, etc. are installed at the adjoining neighbors’s own expense or the fence is part of the building.” In light of the above facts of recognition and the purport of the above provision, it cannot be deemed that the fence of this case is consistent with the Defendants’ land even if the fence of this case was installed on the part of the Defendants’ land. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.
(b).