1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Seocho-gu Regional Forest Administration in the Korea Forest Service, under the Defendant’s control, concluded a service contract with E and carried out forest tending projects conducted in macro-si B (hereinafter “instant forest”) from November 8, 2016 to December 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant project”), as part of the forest tending projects conducted in macro-si B (hereinafter “instant forest”) (hereinafter “instant project”), which interfere with the growth of superior trees, conducted the afforestation of seedlings necessary for the cutting, collection, and the development of future forests.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. 원고의 주장 원고는 약 50년간 이 사건 임야에 있던 시숙(媤叔) C의 분묘(이하 ‘이 사건 분묘’라 한다)를 유족으로서 관리하여 왔는데, 피고가 이 사건 사업을 시행하면서 이 사건 분묘를 훼손하는 바람에 원고가 정신적 고통을 받았으므로, 피고는 원고에게 정신적 손해배상으로 5천만 원을 지급하여야 한다.

3. Determination

A. According to the main sentence of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, when a public official or a private person entrusted with public duties has inflicted damage on another person by intention or negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, in violation of the statutes, the State shall compensate for such damage, and the burden of proof thereof shall be borne by the State against the public official, etc. to the State. In this case, the defendant-affiliated office shall have the responsibility to prove that the plaintiff had inflicted damage on a grave, as alleged by the plaintiff, on the grave that the plaintiff had been protected and managed as his/her bereaved family

B. In full view of the overall testimony and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 6 (including family numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including family numbers), D of the court of first instance and the court of first instance, and Eul of the court of first instance, although it is difficult to specify the exact location of the grave of this case, the plaintiff is a bereaved family member.