1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office filed a claim with the Gwangju District Court for a summary order of KRW 500,000,000 (hereinafter “instant summary order”) against Defendant B and KRW 5 million against Defendant C for the following criminal facts (hereinafter “instant damage”).

A (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) agreed to lease the F, G, H, and I land owned by the Navy D (Representative E) on a five-year basis from the above door around March 5, 2012, and cultivated crops on the said land around that time.

1. On May 2016, the Defendant: (a) found in B’s house located in the Jeonnam-nam NavyJ on the first day of May 2016, and ordered B to carry out the Tracking work on the said land.

Therefore, B, on May 16, 2016, using a Trackter, around 16:00, damaged a dry field of 6,611 square meters in total (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”) of the 3,966 square meters and the 12,644 square meters, etc., which is cultivated by the victim, (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”).

Accordingly, the defendant instigated the above B to damage the victim's property.

2. On May 1, 2016, Defendant B (damage and destruction of property) destroyed a bonded field of 6,61 square meters in size, including F3,966 square meters, I 2,644 square meters, which was cultivated by the victim, by using a Tractor, around 16:00 square meters on May 1, 2016, with the order of the said C, and thereby damaging a bonded field of 6,61 square meters in size.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

B. On December 28, 2016, Gwangju District Court issued a summary order to the Defendants as approximately KRW 2016,1304, and the said summary order was finalized on January 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants’ determination as to the main defense is the owner of the instant crops cultivated by K, one of the Plaintiff, who cultivated the instant crops.