1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim for damages

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 11, 37, 47, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7 (including each number), and according to the results of fact inquiries and the purport of the whole arguments against the head of the same jurisdiction of this court:

(1) On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff requested sale to the real estate broker in order to dispose of the building Nos. 104 and 1402 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned building”) owned by the Plaintiff, and F, a brokerage assistant of the E-real estate brokerage office operated by D, placed an advertisement in the newspaper as the site of electric source, based on the fact that the land is located in the newspaper as the site of electric source, and that F, a brokerage assistant of the E-owned real estate brokerage office owned by D, had the Plaintiff exchange the building owned by the Plaintiff with the said forest.

I, the husband of the Plaintiff, D, F, and Defendant, visited the site in order to confirm the land subject to exchange on February 27, 2013.

G Forest is a forest divided by J around 2006. Since then, K or L forest was divided from G to January 7, 2013, and M forest was divided from January 7, 2013. The location of G or M forest was all shown in the G land use planning confirmation certificate (attached Form 1) referred to as the Plaintiff, I, etc. in confirming the field. As seen in attached Table 1, most of the G forest was indicated as an agricultural and forest area consisting of mountain, and H forest as a production management area adjacent to mountain.

At the time of the site visit, if the Plaintiff exchanges part of G forest and H forest with the Plaintiff’s owned building, it means that the specific location of the forest to be actually exchanged after the land division survey was conducted, and that the land boundary part corresponding to the size of H forest and H forest and the G forest and the land boundary part corresponding to the area of H forest and H forest before partition was displayed directly, as shown in the attached Table 1, in the part of the land where the flatization work was completed, as shown in the attached Table 1. The Plaintiff was informed of the location of the G forest and H forest and the land size notified by the Plaintiff.