1. The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the judgment is modified as follows.

A. The defendant shall pay 34,351,500 won to the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the court below held that the plaintiff purchased the trees of this case on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and on the grounds of its stated reasoning, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to 34,351,50 won (68,703,000 won x 50%) out of the expenses for the collection, since it does not extinguish the defendant's duty to collect the trees of this case against the plaintiff.

The decision was determined.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the existence of collection obligation and the scope of compensation as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. On the third ground for appeal

A. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation”) provides that where it is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of an obligation until the judgment of the court of first instance declares the existence of such obligation until the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to a reasonable extent. Here, the case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute the existence or scope of such obligation to the extent of its existence or scope is interpreted as the case where the obligor’s assertion in dispute over the existence or scope of such obligation is recognized as reasonable. Thus, in the first instance judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant’s appeal was accepted and the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered before it was remanded. Accordingly, in case where the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the Plaintiff’s claim as in the judgment of the court of first instance before it was remanded as a result of the Plaintiff’s appeal, and the judgment of the court below which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim as in the judgment of the court of first instance before it was accepted by the Defendant and remanded.

It should be seen.