beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In around July 201, 2001, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff planted and managed 16-year pine trees 4glus and 9glus (hereinafter “instant tree”) on the Gyeonggi-si D river site (hereinafter “instant river”). At around July 2, 201, the Defendants laid down the instant tree owned by the Plaintiff without permission around July 2, 2015.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,80,000 (=1,00,000 won per 1,000,000 won per 2,50,000 won per 1,000 won per 4,000 won per 4,000) (=2,00,000 won per 1,00 per 1,000 1,00), and 5,000,00 mental damages. Furthermore, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 1,98,00,00 for damages incurred by the Defendants’ damage of the Plaintiff’s reputation by openly criticizeing the Plaintiff’s demand for restitution, which is the sum of KRW 1,98,00 for damages incurred by the Defendants, KRW 1,982,00 for Defendant C, and KRW 1,782,00 for each of them, calculated at the rate of 20
B. As to whether the Defendants, without permission, cut the instant tree planted by the Plaintiff and thereby inflicted damage on the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant tree, the Plaintiff planted the instant tree solely on the health room and on the basis of the statement in evidence Nos. 1 and 6.
It is insufficient to recognize that the instant tree was originally owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Even if the Plaintiff planted the instant tree as its owner, comprehensively taking account of the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 2 through 6 and the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be recognized that the instant river was managed as public property since the registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of the Republic of Korea on February 2, 1996. Thus, the instant tree merely appears to correspond to the instant river, which is owned by the Republic of Korea, and otherwise, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant tree.