1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff, on the ground of literature-si C, D, E, F, and G land (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above land”) set up a stove growing shed, fish farm, and a stove mushroom storage room on the ground. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the removal of a stove growing shed and fish farm installed on the ground of E in order to sell the land owned by the Defendant to H on June 1, 201, and damaged the portion installed on the land owned by the Plaintiff, while removing a stove growing shed and fish farm installed on the ground of E in order to sell the land owned by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by this amount of KRW 31 million and the damages incurred therefrom.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant damaged a sacratus growing house and a fish farm installed on the ground owned by the Plaintiff only by the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the Defendant was damaged, the claim for damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised within three years from the date the victim or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage or of the identity of the tortfeasor (Article 766(1) of the Civil Act). Here, it is clear that the victim or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the occurrence of the damage and that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor’s tort, and it is not necessary to specifically know the degree or amount of the damage

Around November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the theft damage that the Defendant was presumed to have arbitrarily disposed of the interlol, ancient mushroom cultivation shed and fish farm, and that the Defendant sent the Defendant a certificate of the content that the said movable property should be restored to its original state on March 11, 2013, and there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the damage and the perpetrator around that time.

Since the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that it was filed on January 24, 2019 after three years have elapsed since it was filed, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the tort against the Defendant is prescriptive.