1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for urban gas construction works (hereinafter “each contract of this case”) with the owner of building D, E, and the owner of building on the land of building F, G, and the owner of building on the land of building F, G, and the owner of building on the land of building F, G, I, and the owner of the above ground. The Defendant entered into an urban gas construction contract with the said owner prior to entering into each contract of this case.

B. The Defendant removed gas pipes installed under each of the instant contracts without the consent of the Plaintiff.

The value of gas pipes installed by the Plaintiff on each building of the above owners is KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the construction cost, including gas pipes removed by the Defendant against the above owners (as to D, KRW 3,600,000, KRW 2500,000, KRW 1,000,000, out of the above claim amount, to H and J, and KRW 1,000,000,00 among the above claim amount, and KRW 1,30,000,000,000, respectively, to the Plaintiff, and the J (as to this Court, KRW 2016,00,000, KRW 1,300,000,000, and KRW 1,845,00,000, respectively, (as to this Court, KRW 2016,58479) were concluded.

The plaintiff from the above owners.

The amount of the conciliation stated in the subsection was fully paid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the gas pipeline value, since the gas pipeline installed by the plaintiff was removed and damaged without permission.

B. However, in full view of the fact that the Plaintiff received construction cost, including gas pipeline values, from the above owners through the above separate proceedings, the Defendant is the crime of property damage in relation to the instant case, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 11.