1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, in relation to seven districts (K, L district, M district, N district, N district, O district, P district, Q district, and Q district) located in the elderly group located in the Nakdongdong River, a national river, operated the aggregate extraction site (hereinafter “the aggregate extraction site in this case”).

B. Defendant A, C, D, E, and I are the police assigned for special guard working at the aggregate extraction site of this case, and Defendants B, F, G, H, and J are the employees of indefinite contract who work at the aggregate extraction site of this case, and one police assigned for special guard and one life contract worker as two employees per month, while performing duties such as guard, removal of aggregate from office, etc.

C. The Defendants, in collusion with aggregate extraction business entities from April 2007 to March 2010, carried out without permission aggregate in an unpermitted quantity by manipulating records on aggregate removal. Accordingly, the Defendants were subject to criminal punishment due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3 through 10, 15 through 30, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendants’ tort committed by the Defendants in collusion with the Plaintiff’s assertion aggregate extraction business entity and taken out aggregate beyond the permitted scope caused damages equivalent to the amount obtained by deducting the rent for equipment necessary for aggregate extraction from the market price of aggregate taken out without permission. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of damages indicated in the purport of the claim corresponding to the amount of damages calculated on the basis of the amount of damages

B. First, we examine whether the Plaintiff has the right to seek damages from the unauthorized removal of aggregate against the Defendants.

The right to claim damages due to the unclaimed removal of sprinked aggregate and the unclaimed removal of the aggregate belongs to the owner of the aggregate, and the aggregate extraction site in this case is located.