logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가합2476
손해배상(건)
Text

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

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

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing containers and construction materials, and D is the representative (in-house director) of the plaintiff.

Defendant B is a representative of E Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “E”) who is engaged in building work business, real estate development business, and civil engineering work business (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”), and engages in real estate development and consulting business, building work business, civil engineering work business, factory establishment agency business, etc.

On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased 4729 square meters from the F for the purpose of constructing a factory on the said ground (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff changed the land category of the instant land to a factory site. On November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff became final 13313 square meters of the G factory site in Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. On the other hand, H and I Co., Ltd., which owns neighboring land of the instant land, began to occupy and use the instant land as their entrance into the factory site on October 2013, to use it as their entrance into the factory site. On the other hand, H and I Co., Ltd., Ltd., around 2013, obtained permission to occupy and use the portion of 956 square meters of the land (period: from October 2, 2013 to December 31, 2020; hereinafter “instant permission to occupy and use the instant land”). From October 2013 to October 26, 2015.

In order for the Plaintiff to construct a new factory on the instant land, it was necessary to obtain permission to occupy and use the road to use the site for entering the factory site. However, since the permission to occupy and use the instant land was near the instant land, the Plaintiff changed the scope of the permission to occupy and use the instant land in consultation with I et al., and then the Plaintiff intended to perform the road occupation and use construction work around the instant land, and the remainder

Accordingly, at the time when I obtained permission to occupy and use the road of this case, the Plaintiff was in charge of civil engineering, design and authorization and permission.

arrow