logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원의성지원 2019.11.13 2018가단10793
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C removed structures, such as Galods, installed on the ground of 2,19 square meters above the Gyeong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, and the foregoing.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 31, 2016, with respect to the land of 2,119 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

Defendant C owns 1,337 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “E land”) prior to Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sungbuk-gun, adjacent to the instant land, and Defendant C, who is a child of Defendant C, owns 2,145 square meters prior to the F, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun (hereinafter referred to as “F land”).

B. It is difficult for Defendant C to view that part of the instant land constituted a structure in a legal sense, such as a Gamers and slicks, etc. located on the ground of the instant land, which is located on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant structure”). However, since the Plaintiff did not raise any specific objection against the instant structure, Defendant C received the expression of the Plaintiff’s use as it is, since it did not object to the instant structure.

B established and occupied and used part of the land in this case.

다. G 불기소결정서(을 제1호증)에는 G가 원고의 동거인이라고 기재되어 있다. 는 피고 C가 2017년 7월경 G에게 ‘약을 치지 말라고 하였는데 왜 약을 치느냐. 너 한번 당해볼래 가만두지 않겠다’는 등의 발언을 하면서 때릴 듯한 시늉을 하였다는 이유로 피고 C를 업무방해죄와 모욕죄로 고소하였다.

However, on May 23, 2019, the public prosecutor belonging to the Sung-gu District Public Prosecutor's Branch's Office decided not to prosecute Defendant C on the ground that it is difficult to view Defendant C's speech and behavior as an obstruction of duty by force or an expression of anti-defensive appraisal.

On June 3, 2016, 2016, October 9, 2016, and November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff “to legally process the Plaintiff on the day of spraying agricultural chemicals.” The Plaintiff “to file a complaint for property damage”, and “to notify the Plaintiff of the scheduled report of the police box that his father will be responsible for the loss caused by the spread of agricultural chemicals, because his father’s concealment is very hidden and is difficult.”

arrow