beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Scope of adjudication of this court;
A. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 40,000,000 in total, and KRW 50,000 in total,00,000 in compensation for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff as part of the lost income that the Plaintiff suffered due to the Defendant’s damage to the septic tank pipe operated by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay.
B. On this issue, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (recing the claim for actual income, referring to KRW 3,000,000 among the claim for consolation money, and referring to the claim for consolation money). Since only the Defendant appealed in respect of the part against the Defendant, only the claim for consolation money amounting to KRW 3,00,000 as cited in the first instance court among the claim for consolation
2. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 4 and the purport of all pleadings.
The Plaintiff is a person who runs the lodging business under the trade name of the “Epentan” in the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant is a person who runs the lodging business under the trade name of the “Dpentan” in C, a land adjacent to the above pentan.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly uses the purification tank while operating the pent, and there are two pipes connected to the above purification tank, the Plaintiff’s penty, and the Defendant’s penty (hereinafter “instant pipes”). One is a T-type pipe connected to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s penty and the purification tank, and the remainder is directly connected to the Plaintiff’s penty.
C. On June 19, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of KRW 1,000,000 (the same court 2012 High Court 505) in the Changwon District Court's Jinju Branch Branch on February 19, 2013, and appealed against the judgment, but on August 2013, 201, the Defendant appealed against the judgment.