The Plaintiffs are co-owners of 14,558 square meters of forest forest Fancheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”)’s main business purpose was the manufacture and sale of packing boxes, wood manufacturing and wood products wholesale, retail, etc., and each of its incidental businesses, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) added the ornamental forest plant cultivation and sale business for the purpose of November 10, 2014.

A corporation is an owner of G forest land 9,608 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “Defendant Company’s land”).

Defendant E, who was in office as a director of the Defendant Company until August 21, 2014, was in office as a director of the Defendant Company and thereafter is in office as an auditor.

Around July 9, 2012, Defendant E, as an internal director of the Defendant Company, reported the temporary use of a mountainous district for the purpose of growing ornamental trees to the Defendant Company’s land, and obtained permission for temporary use of a mountainous district by July 31, 2013. However, around August 2012, Defendant E cut off the trees of the part of the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, 34, 33, 32, and 3 of the instant land, which are connected in sequence to each of the items of the said land, and damaged the land.

[Based on the facts established prior to the occurrence of liability for damages as a result of the survey and appraisal conducted by Gap's evidence (including each number, if any) and Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the appraiser J of the first instance trial (affiliated with the branch office of the Chungcheong Headquarters of the Korea National Land Information Corporation) as a result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser J of the first instance trial, Defendant E, as an internal director of the defendant company, is obliged to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to such tort, since it invadeds the boundaries of the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs for the purpose of cultivating

In addition, Defendant E as the employer of Defendant E, who is an employee in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Act.