1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant regarding a request for non-explosion shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be applicable.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff is a person who has been awarded a successful bid in the procedures for the auction of real estate rent D (hereinafter “instant auction procedures”) located in Changwon District Court Jinju-si, Jinju-si, for a real estate of 255 square meters and the 115.70 square meters, which is a building on the said land (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and is currently running the inspection before the Plaintiff.

B. At around April 2013, the Defendant arbitrarily removed one plate, which was affected by the son, and attach it to the building managed by the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, one tin, such as the images of the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant Buddhist”) and one master’s degree was installed on the left and right, on the side of the said fluort prior to the said fluore. However, around April 2013, the Defendant moved the instant fluor to the warehouse managed by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) that the Defendant arbitrarily removed the Plaintiff’s erode around April 2013, the Defendant sought compensation of KRW 1,00,000 for property damage caused by the said tort. 2) At the time of acquiring the instant real estate by auction, the Plaintiff acquired the instant erode ownership, as it was included in the auction subject matter.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s non-return of the instant case is sought.

B. We examine the judgment on the claim for damages, as seen earlier, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the fluort prior to the above fluort around April 2013, and comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 6, the Plaintiff’s expenses of KRW 1,00,000 are acknowledged to remove the fluort attached to the building managed by the Defendant and re- remove it before the above fluort. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant committed a tort against the Plaintiff.