logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.13 2018나18985
손해배상(국)
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. On January 31, 2016, the Defendant-affiliated Army Group caused a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) by the b4gluxane of the instant land (hereinafter “instant pine trees”) while training in the D training site near the 8,671m2 in Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant land”). As a result, pine trees 24gluxs on the instant land (hereinafter “instant pine trees”).

B. Around August 10, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land owned by E on the grounds of a consultation on the land for public works.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, around 2001, the Plaintiff leased the instant land from E, the owner of the instant land, and cultivated pine trees and bank trees on the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff planted the instant land, the instant pine trees and bank trees planted by a legitimate title are owned by the Plaintiff.

However, during the training of the Army BS group under the defendant's jurisdiction, fire occurred due to negligence, and the fire occurred, the fire of the plaintiff, which was planted on the land of this case, suffered loss of the pine trees of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages from the said fire (i.e., 9,796,764 won for the appraised value of the lost pine of this case - KRW 610,1298 - 55,291 won for unjust enrichment from the rent for possession without permission).

B. First of all, the issue of whether the Plaintiff planted the instant pine trees based on the lawful right of lease is examined. (2) According to the entries in Gap evidence No. 6 and the testimony of witness F of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff leased the instant land from E around 2001 and planted pine trees and bank trees on the instant land, and around 206, around the time when the Defendant acquired ownership of the instant land.

arrow