1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,577,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 30, 2016 to May 24, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the co-owner of 7,269 square meters and D forest land 7,180 square meters in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land and forest land”). The Defendant is the owner of E factory land 2,229 square meters and F forest land 4,343 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land and forest land in this case (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land and forest land”).

B. The Defendant destroyed part of the steel pents (hereinafter “instant pents”) installed on the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land, forest land, and forest in this case and the Defendant’s forest land (hereinafter “instant boundary line”) in the course of carrying out stone construction in the Defendant’s forest land (hereinafter “instant stone construction”).

C. The appraiser appraised the cost of restoring the damaged portion out of the instant pents in KRW 2,577,00.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 8 (including each number), the video, the appraiser G's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In accordance with the survey appraisal conducted around December 5, 2012, the Defendant damaged AnhkaV (hereinafter “instant AnhkaV”) installed on the instant boundary line (hereinafter “the instant boundary line”), and as a result, the instant boundary became unclear. The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the costs of the survey appraisal conducted again in order to verify or confirm the boundary of the instant case, KRW 1,715,00, which is part of the costs of the survey appraisal conducted again in order to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred therefrom.

(1) The claim

B. Since the Defendant damaged part of the instant pents during the process of executing the instant stone construction, it is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 20,000,000, which is part of the recovery cost, and the delay damages therefor.

(B) argument

3. Determination

A. (1) It is not enough to recognize that the Defendant damaged the instant religion V solely with the images of Gap evidence 7, as to the assertion, and there is a different difference.