beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,320,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 26, 2013 to January 21, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of basic recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who cultivates Blube in the rice field located in Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun (hereinafter “the instant Blubeg arable land”), and the Defendant is a person who sets up a farmer’s house in the Category D (hereinafter “Defendant’s ownership”) located in the vicinity of the instant Blug arable land.
B. On February 25, 2013, at the instant blue arable land, a fire that occurred on February 25, 2013, and all blue trees planted therein were destroyed (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. As a result of the investigation into the instant accident (hereinafter “instant investigation”), the investigative agency judged that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s act, and subsequently prosecuted the Defendant on suspicion of realizing the accident. On February 18, 2014, the Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 2 million (the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch 2013Ma214).
Although the Defendant filed an appeal against this, the judgment dismissing an appeal on October 14, 2015 (the Jeonju District Court 2014No230) was rendered, and the Defendant filed an appeal again, and the final appeal is currently pending (Supreme Court 2015Do17291).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant criminal trial,” in total, of the above criminal trials. 【The ground for recognition”), the fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence No. 4-1, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 9-1, 2, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The accident of this case was caused by the fire that the defendant was located in the argument owned by the defendant, and thus, the defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's summary of the defendant's argument was found to have set a fire in the defendant's argument on February 25, 2013, but the defendant left the site after confirming that the fire was completely extinguished. Thus, the accident of this case is not caused by the defendant's act.