beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. Determination as to the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant purchased the instant land on or around December 17, 2014, and from the end of January 2015 to gather the instant land from the end of January 2015, Nonparty D and E, neglecting the boundary of the existing land without confirmation of boundary, and arbitrarily owned the Plaintiff’s land F, G, and H (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).
The cutting and banking of the Plaintiff’s land made it impossible to recognize the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land, damaged the Plaintiff’s soil to no longer use, and damaged the drainage pipe of 700 meters laid underground. (2) The Plaintiff is obliged to pay damages equivalent to KRW 22,542,00,00 in total, including expenses for recovery of damages caused by the Defendant’s tort, KRW 15,822,000, loss of trees, KRW 220,000, and other expenses, including expenses for supplementation of access roads for work use, and KRW 1,100,000, KRW 3,400, KRW 3,000, and KRW 222,542,00,000, in compensation for damages caused by the Defendant’s tort.
B. Determination 1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed an unlawful act as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff asserted that Nonparty D and E made it impossible to recognize the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land as above, damaged the place where the Plaintiff owned, damaged the soil, and damaged the drain pipe at 700 meters laid underground, etc., and filed a complaint with the same purport as in the instant case, such as D, E’s damage to property, and boundary intrusion (Cheongju District Prosecutor’s Chungcheong District Prosecutors’ Office, 2015 type No. 89444), but it was only the fact that a non-prosecution disposition was issued as to October 28, 2015, D, and E without suspicion (Evidence of non-prosecution disposition by lack of evidence).
Therefore, the plaintiff's case is based on the premise that the defendant committed the above tort.