A. The Plaintiff leased and managed trees on the ground of the leased land owned by Nonparty C. However, even though the Defendant, who promoted the housing development project on the above land, knew that the above tree ownership belongs to the Plaintiff, thereby damaging trees without the Plaintiff’s consent, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant by an explicit claim against the Defendant.

B. Although the Defendant imposed a tree on the above land in the process of promoting the Defendant’s housing development project, there is no evidence to deem that the above tree ownership belongs to the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. The following facts may be found as a whole of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6 (including each number):

With respect to the land of 1,605 square meters in Cheongju-si, a reasonable ground for ownership, G orchard 3,037 square meters, and H forest of 2,037 square meters in Cheongju-si, a reasonable ground for ownership (hereinafter “instant land”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed for each 1/9 share in the name of C, I, J, K, L, M, and N with respect to each 3/9 share in the name of Cheongju-si, a reasonable ground for inheritance. < Amended by Act No. 11413, Nov. 29, 2012>

B. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant, who was trying to carry out a housing development project on the instant land, entered into a contract with the above co-inheritors to compensate for lost water amounting to 2.3 billion won on the instant land (hereinafter “instant indemnity contract”). On the 19th of the same month, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, which stipulates that the Defendant shall pay the transfer income tax and the inheritance tax on the instant land by proxy (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name.

C. On the other hand, this case sales contract on behalf of the defendant is concluded.