logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2016.02.02 2014가단7508
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty D to the effect that E’s subject matter is flat from May 22, 2013 to May 26, 2013 (hereinafter “instant flatization work”).

The work of flatization was in accordance with the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office's order to restore to its original state.

B. The Plaintiff used a farm road (hereinafter “instant farm road”) established on the H ditch adjacent to the G answer owned by Defendant B in order to go to the destination from the F earth’s place to the destination for the instant flat work.

C. From May 24, 2013 to October 10, 2010, Defendant B interfered with general traffic by installing dump trucks on the instant farm road (hereinafter “instant track”) so that the Plaintiff’s dump trucks cannot pass on the instant farm road from May 24, 2013 to the instant farm road from May 25, 200.

At the time, dump trucks could move to the farm road of this case by avoiding the track of this case, but some articles were refused to move to the side of the farm road on the ground of danger of collapse of the farm road.

As to Defendant B, a fine of KRW 5 million was finalized due to the above criminal facts.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Ma741, Daejeon District Court 2014No2312, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do14805).

Defendant C: (a) from around 10:00 on May 24, 2013 to around 17:00 on May 26, 2013, on the grounds that the instant farm road does not pass without permission on its own land from the instant farm road; (b) obstructed the front of dump trucks; (c) laid down dump trucks on a farm road; (d) laid down sump pipes on the farm road; and (d) laid down down sump pipes on the sump trucks from around 07:15 on June

7. From 10:30 to 10, dump trucks were subject to suspension of indictment on the ground of the fact that the Plaintiff interfered with the Plaintiff’s flatization work of this case by force by transferring dump trucks to the farm of this case.

E. Even until May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was not able to complete the instant flatization work, and June 6, 2013 and the same month.

7. Of the frameworks.

arrow