beta
Text
1. Defendants B, C, and E are as follows: KRW 11,125,00 for each Plaintiff and as a result, from November 18, 2014 to November 11, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of G 10413 square meters (hereinafter “G”), H miscellaneous land 2068 square meters (hereinafter “H”), and I forest 4534 square meters (hereinafter “I”) before permanent residence. J leased G from A, thereby planting pine trees, and Defendant B is a landscaping business entity.
B. On August 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B to sell the Plaintiff’s pine trees of KRW 200 per share of KRW 125,000 per share (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
C. In accordance with the instant sales contract, Defendant B extracted 51 U.S. pine trees from G where J’s pine trees were planted for both days on November 17, 2014 and November 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant extraction work”). Defendant B extracted 89 pine trees of the Plaintiff’s pine trees planted in I.
Defendant B transferred KRW 2,50,000,000 to J on September 15, 2014, and KRW 10,000,00 on November 19, 2014, and KRW 5,000,00 on November 20, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, 9-1, 2, and 19, the CD verification results and the result of on-site verification, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although J stated that the Defendants were the subject matter of the contract to sell only pine trees planted on G’s ground at the time of the Defendants’ extraction operations, the Defendants extracted 89 pine trees owned by the Plaintiff, and even if the Defendants did not intend to do so, there was a steel network fence installed at G and I boundary, and the Defendants, as the Defendants were small-quality pine trees more than G pine trees, should have confirmed that the first ground pine trees were the subject matter of the contract to sell this case. Furthermore, at the time of the above extraction operations, the Defendants caused damages to the Plaintiff by negligence, even though they neglected to confirm that the first ground pine trees were the subject matter of the contract to sell this case.