logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.12 2019나51446
건물등철거
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendants are the defendants.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance,

[C] The fourth part of the "paragraph (e) of Article 1" is as follows.

“마. 원고 하수관을 망 B의 하수관 공사 이전 상태로 회복하기 위하여 원고 하수관과 피고 하수관의 연결부위인 별지 2 ㉳부분부터 원고 하수관이 기존 서울시 하수구와 연결되는 별지 7 두번째 사진의 A부분까지 원고 하수관을 교체하여야 하고, 이를 위하여 10m 상당의 PVC관이 필요하다.” 제4쪽 11행의 [인정근거]를 아래와 같이 고친다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, 20, 27, 28, 56, and 73 (including the number of branch offices), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and images; Eul evidence Nos. 3; Eul witness testimony at the court of first instance; the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance; the result of appraiser K’s appraisal by the court of first instance and this court of first instance (including the results of a request for supplementation and inquiry); the purport of all pleadings.]

2. The parties' assertion

가. 원고 (1) 망 B은 2008년 제1심 공동피고 I가 입점할 무렵 무단으로 ㉳부분의 원고 하수관에 구멍을 뚫어 파손하고 그곳에 피고 하수관을 연결하여 10여 년 동안 피고의 오폐수를 무단 방류해왔다.

(2) Since it was difficult for the network B to use the part corresponding to the 10m of the Plaintiff’s PVC pipeline as normal usage due to the damage of the Plaintiff’s sewage pipe, the Defendants, the heir of the network B, should pay to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages the replacement cost of the part corresponding to the 10m of the Plaintiff’s PVC pipe (=2,400,000/3).

B. The Defendants (1) did not cause damage to the Plaintiff’s sewage pipes without permission to connect the Defendant’s sewage pipes to the Plaintiff’s sewage pipes; when the Plaintiff newly constructed the Plaintiff’s building in 199, the Defendant was working to destroy the ground.

arrow