beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,012,695 to the Plaintiffs, as well as 5% per annum from December 8, 2012 to November 1, 2016, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs jointly own land of 2,046 square meters of land D in Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”). The Defendant cultivated dry field in the land adjoining to the instant forest.
B. The instant forest land is located in different dry field and floor of the Defendant, and is located on the shores of relatively high mountain season, and is easily distinguishable from the shores. The instant forest land has been well set as a whole, such as those graves under the management of the Plaintiffs, and the creation of turdry field with no miscellaneous trees or miscellaneous trees on the ground, centering around the grave. At the end of the instant forest land, the instant forest land was located at a distance of about 50 cm between dry field and dry field owned by the Defendant and dry field owned by the Defendant.
This tree is cut and larger than other trees created in the forest of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant pine tree”), and its surrounding areas are also cut well without miscellaneous trees or miscellaneous plants.
C. The Defendant cut down the instant pine trees around 10:00 on December 8, 2012, and the present status of the instant pine trees remains under the bottom.
The defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 5 million on October 2, 2014, after he/she was prosecuted for the crime of cutting down the instant pine trees without permission from the head of Si/Gun/Gu or the head of Si/Gun/Gu.
(B) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff gave the Plaintiff’s consent during the pertinent criminal proceedings. However, such circumstance that the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had given the Plaintiff’s consent during the pertinent criminal proceedings shows that the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the instant pine trees were owned by the Plaintiff at the time of felling the instant pine trees.
The above argument has not been accepted.
On the other hand, the instant judgment became final and conclusive on October 29, 2015 by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Supreme Court.
【Ground for Recognition: Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 3-3, and result of on-site inspection by this Court.