In this regard, the plaintiff filed an appeal only with respect to the whole claim of the principal lawsuit and part of the counterclaim claim of the defendant C among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant B filed an incidental appeal with respect to his counterclaim claim of the court of first instance, and the defendant C did not file an appeal with respect to his counterclaim claim of the court of first instance with respect to the part which partly lost among his counterclaim claim of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment on the party shall be limited to the part against the plaintiff among the main lawsuit filed by the plaintiff and the counterclaim claim by the defendant C, and to the part against the plaintiff's counterclaim claim by the defendant B.

2. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s principal claim 1) Since the Defendants, as a result of unlawful banking of soil on the Plaintiff’s land, illegally filled up the Plaintiff’s land and damaged saw trees, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages for the total amount of KRW 2,458,400,000 for damages incurred by the Plaintiff on January 25, 202, 200 (see, e.g., the appraisal statement 13, July 23, 2020; 29,38,000 for the market price of damaged trees; and expenses for planting trees at KRW 29,38,000 for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff on January 25, 202, 200 for the appraisal of KRW 2,458,40,00 for the year 2016,087,000 for x 1,50g x 1,504 x 107,407,7107).

2) Even if there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants for damages regarding the rescission of the agreement, ① the Defendants failed to perform the agreement and did not perform additional 60-70 cm on the existing banking, and was tree planting.