beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 803,00 to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 13, 2016 to October 11, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner of the instant building located on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) and the owner of the building located on the instant land.
B. On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff leased part of the instant land and the instant building to E with a deposit of KRW 15,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and period of lease from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2020, and E operated restaurant business in the instant building.
C. Defendant Republic of Korea entered into a contract with F as an incorporated foundation (hereinafter “F”) for excavation of cultural heritage (exploitation) and investigation services within the GG construction section, and the F was the first investigation from August 24, 2015 to September 8, 2015, and the second investigation from October 19, 2015 to November 23, 2015.
In addition, on April 11, 2016, Defendant Republic of Korea entered into a contract with Defendant 2’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) for excavation of cultural heritage (detailed) within the G Corporation section, and accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea conducted an investigation from April 28, 2016.
E. Meanwhile, the Defendant Republic of Korea entered into a contract for GD with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and the Defendant Company laid down trees in the vicinity of the instant land for the excavation of cultural heritage.
F. Afterwards, earth and sand in the vicinity of the instant land came to the instant building on June 13, 2016 (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, E suspended restaurant business, but resumed the instant business on June 23, 2016.
G. Meanwhile, on November 11, 2016, the head of the Gun having jurisdiction over the removal of a 103.2 square meters, which was extended without permission, among the instant building, was ordered to remove. Accordingly, the Plaintiff removed the order on November 22, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and this Court's achievement.