1. Plaintiff 1, among the parts against Defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the following amount which orders payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. During the period from March 26, 2012 to March 27, 2012, Defendant B destroyed the food and tools indicated in the list of property damage and damage, such as the household building on the D ground in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and the 17 copies of the identification plant owned by the Plaintiff, which was stored and planted in the food storage space, and the above above ground trees and raw materials.

As a result, property damage suffered by the Plaintiff is KRW 11,218,691 (i.e., 17 copies x 659,923), which is equivalent to the market price in the early 17th place of food, etc. (i.e., 17 copies x 659,923), and other property damage amounting to at least KRW 5,00,000, which is at least KRW 5,000.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 21,218,691 (= KRW 5,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 3-1, No. 3-2, No. 7-3, No. 6, and No. 8-2, and the purport of the evidence No. 8-2, as a whole, as well as the testimony and arguments by the witness F of the first instance trial, Defendant B, on March 3, 2012, destroyed KRW 5, Dong 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, which were kept, planted in each land owned by the Plaintiff on the Haman-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and 1,000,000 won of the Changwon District Court was issued as a property damage crime, and the summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

Therefore, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the aforementioned tort.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant B damaged the same goods as the Plaintiff claimed in addition to five parts of the above identification plant and two parts of the tree, but the testimony of the witness F of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.