1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 4, 2014 to November 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 4,998 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to C in Sejong-si.

B. The instant land has five seedlings, and there are standing timber around the tombate, such as a photo, attached Table 1, around the tombate.

(Annex 1) The inside of the instant land is the instant land among the pictures, and the color part of the instant land is the standing timber. In addition, in the part where there is standing timber among the instant land, E forest land is adjacent to the instant land and D.

In addition, at the boundary point of the above two lands, there is no marking or boundary stone indicating the boundary.

C. The Defendant obtained permission to cut down the timber on the land owned by D and accordingly cut the instant land on December 4, 2014, when he was engaged in the cutting of the instant land on December 4, 2014, and cut down 33glus, 3glus, 3glus, 9glus, and 1glus of pine trees on the instant land (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant standing timber”), and left it unattended as they are.

On March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for larceny by committing the act of cutting down the said timber. On the ground that “It is difficult to distinguish the boundaries between the instant land and the instant forest owned by the D, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a criminal intent against larceny in light of the fact that the Defendant’s cut timber was left unattended as it is, it is difficult to deem that there was a criminal intention against the Defendant.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and 3 of Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including the number of pages) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant's summary of the plaintiff's assertion has cut standing timber of this case without permission, and thus is liable to compensate the plaintiff for tort.

However, since the standing timber of this case is usable as landscape trees, it is due to the tort of this case.