beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff owned forest land E-Gun 10,413 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant, in turn, connected each point of (a) part of 91 square meters in the instant land among the said land and caused damage to KRW 600,00,000 on the part of (a) forest road (hereinafter “instant forest road”) on the part of 91 square meters in the ship connected each point of (b) in sequence 1,2,3,4,5,5, and 1, which was planted on the said land without any title.
Therefore, the plaintiff claims 31,00,000 won as part of the above 600,000 won as compensation for damages.
In addition, the defendant is obligated to close the forest road of this case which was installed without a title and restore it to its original state.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff seeks a prohibition against passing the above forest road to the Defendant.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant started a business of building a forest road of 2.12 km in length from May 7, 2018 to G in the west-do, Nam-do. During that process, the Defendant was unable to obtain cooperation for the use of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and opened a forest road by changing the route of the said project with the consent of the owner of H in the south-do, Gyeongnam-do, and the Korea National Land Information Corporation as of February 7, 2019. As a result of the survey of the forest road route of the altered forest road as of February 7, 2019, it can be acknowledged that the said forest road is entering the Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, Gyeongnam-do, Gyeong-do, with the consent of the owner of the said land.
As to this, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that it was erroneous for the Plaintiff to survey the termination of the Korea Land Information Corporation, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is difficult to recognize it, and otherwise, the Defendant constructed a road without title on the land owned by the Plaintiff.
There is no evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff’s pine trees were punished without permission in the process.