1. Defendant (Plaintiffs) who exceeds the money that orders the following payment among the part concerning the main lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 10,566 square meters of the forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant, as the owner of 3,768 square meters of D forest land adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), has built fences on the line connected with each of the points of 5,67,26,25,24, and 834 square meters of land in addition to the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land”), around 1994, around B around 1994, he was raising satis in the line connected to the instant land in sequence of 29,29,29,29,28,27,26,25,24,24, and (b) part of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant area occupied”).

B. Since then, as a dispute arises between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the boundary of the instant land and the Defendant’s land, the Plaintiff around October 201, and the Defendant conducted a land boundary survey around April 201, and as a result of the survey, the occupied portion of the instant land belongs to the instant land, not the Defendant’s land. As a result, around April 201, the Defendant removed the said fence installed in the occupied part of the instant land and installed a fence again on the boundary of the instant land and the Defendant’s land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8; Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4; Eul witness E of the court of first instance; Eul witness of the court of first instance; Eul witness of the court of first instance; the result of appraisal entrustment to the Hongsung-gun branch office of the court of first instance; the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. (1) With respect to the claim for damages due to pine trees, the Defendant asserted that the land of this case and the land of this case were aware or could have known of the actual boundaries of the land of this case. However, around January 2006 through February 2, 2006, the Defendant and his husband were to cut down 68 pine trees, which were located in the possession of this case. ② On September 2010, G, a landscaper, had G cut down 16 pine trees near the Defendant’s cemetery in the instant land, which were located in the instant land. ③ The instant land falls under the natural environment conservation area, public-interest conservation area, etc., and even if the forest owner was a forest owner, they cut, thin out, and thin down standing trees.