1. Defendant F: (a) on March 13, 2014 with respect to KRW 921,818, Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E, KRW 614,55, and each of the said money.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument as a whole in the testimony by the witness I, the plaintiffs are co-owners of the J-owned Forest of 6,942 cubic meters (hereinafter "the forest of this case") (the share of public land: plaintiff A3/11, plaintiff B, C, D, E 2/11), and the defendants were punished or stuffed on the ground of the forest of this case on March 13, 2014 without the consent of the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the forest of this case, as the owner of the forest of this case, on March 13, 2014, without the consent of the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the forest of this case. The defendant F was 1-1 to 1-4 harmful districts, and 1-5 through 1-9, and 1-2-2 and 2-2.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the above illegal acts.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The appraisal standard for the determination of the amount of damages is nothing more than using such knowledge or experience as a supplementary means for the determination of what matters the court requires, so long as there are several different appraisals as to the same facts, and there is no evidence to prove that there is any error among them, the court has employed any one of the appraisal, or recognized any fact based on only a part of the appraisal.

Even if it does not violate the rules of experience or logic, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 99Du1731 delivered on June 15, 2001, 2008Da45491, 45507 delivered on November 13, 2008, etc.). The Plaintiffs and the Defendants asserted as to whether the Defendants are of value as landscaped trees, or whether the hacks or stuffed sea water has value as landscaped trees.

As a result of the on-site inspection by this Court, the appraiser K's appraisal results are against L of this Court.