2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3351 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 3, 2014, the Defendant removed, without the Plaintiff’s permission, an amount equivalent to KRW 2,400,000 (=80,000 per 1 unit x 30 units) of the market value of 30 dump trucks on the instant land.

C. As above, the costs incurred in restoring soil are KRW 2,50,000,000 for two dump trucks with two dump trucks, and KRW 1,500,000 for four dump trucks with 15 tons, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant's act of removing soil on the land of this case without permission of the plaintiff who is the soil owner constitutes a tort against the plaintiff.

As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,900,000 (=the amount of KRW 2,500,000 for the restoration of soil value of KRW 2,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 25, 2015 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded a sales contract with D to purchase the said soil from KRW 5,450,000,000 with D around December 2014, knowing that the Plaintiff’s birth D was the owner of the instant land, and that there was no money to be paid to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserted that there was no money to be paid to the Plaintiff, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s birth D’s early December 2014, with the sales price of KRW 5,450,00,00 for the soil on the instant land, although it was recognized that the sales contract was concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s birth, the soil on the instant land was owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with D without any legal authority on the said soil, solely on the basis that the Defendant concluded the sales contract with D.