beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial, the defendant 2.2.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be admitted as a whole to each entry in Gap 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 (including a serial number if there is no dispute between the parties or if there is a serial number):
The Plaintiff received an order to reinstate from the Haan-gun Office of Haan-gun to restore the land to its original state on the ground that the Plaintiff had installed concrete packaging and building on the 1,195 square meters prior to Haan-gun, Haan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1,600,000 to the Defendant on the same day (the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,60,000 to the Defendant on the same day, including KRW 1,50,000) and KRW 2,100,000 on December 20, 2013, respectively, by remitting KRW 2,10,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant money”).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff delegated the Defendant with respect to the permission, etc. to divert farmland to the instant land. According to the Defendant’s instruction, the Plaintiff, who installed concrete packaging works and buildings on the instant land, did not handle the delegated affairs, thereby causing damage to the instant land, such as concrete packaging costs, retail stores construction costs, removal costs, etc., and the Defendant is obligated to compensate for such damage.
However, even though the delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded, the Defendant did not implement the delegation contract.
There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant ordered the construction of concrete packaging works and the construction of buildings on the instant land without obtaining any permission on diversion of farmland or obtaining any permission on diversion of farmland.
The plaintiff asserts in the trial that Gap 10 witness statement (E) can be used as evidence and that according to the statement, his own assertion is recognized.
On the other hand, the defendant did not appear as a witness in relation to E and the plaintiff, and the cross-examination.