The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

Conclusion of a lease agreement and interference with traffic;

A. On April 14, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) leased approximately 4,500 square meters (hereinafter “instant orchard”) among Eancheon-si Forest 49,092 square meters to the Defendant each year on April 14, 2000 in 4000 square meters (it shall be paid since 2005, and payment shall be made on September 30 each year) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (b) planted sublim trees, etc. in the instant orchard.

B. On December 29, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the delivery of the instant orchard to the Plaintiff, and, upon refusal by the Plaintiff, installed a steel network and warning board on the access road to the instant orchard around April 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserts that there was no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence, testimony of witness D of the court of first instance, and whether there was business loss in the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff suffered losses of KRW 180,000 (60,000 won per 1 year profit x 5 years) in total due to the defendant's construction of a steel network, for which 30,000 won per 60,000 won per 1 year (60,000 won x 300,000 won).

Around April 2013, the Defendant demanded the delivery of the instant orchard and installed a steel network on the access road. However, as a result, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant orchard. In addition, considering the entire purport of the pleadings on the witness witness D of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff did not interfere with the passage of the steel network by cutting the whole or part of the steel network installed for a long time, and the Plaintiff continued to reside in a large-scale steel box (container building) located in the instant orchard. Since April 2013, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff neglected the Plaintiff, even though other farmers of the area freely passed through the access road of the instant orchard while leaving the farming house in the instant orchard.

Comprehensively taking account of these facts, the defendant's wire-help network.