1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land of this case is owned by Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 4, 1971, when the land category of D forest land was changed and divided around November 27, 2012 at Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 2, 2017, Defendant B was convicted of a fine of KRW 1,50,000 on the following grounds: (a) Defendant B was convicted of a fine of KRW 1,50,000 on the instant land on July 5, 2016; and (b) the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive on February 10, 2017, on the following grounds: “Around July 5, 2016, Defendant B caused Defendant C to cut trees of KRW 6glus, 3glus, etc. owned by the victim of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, and stolen them after having the Defendant C cut the trees of KRW 9glus.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In around 1970, the plaintiff asserted that he had obtained approval from Jeju Special Self-Governing Province to use the land in this case with his father's consent to use the land in this case, and raised 45 weeks and 3 weeks in the land in this case, which is owned by Jeju Special Self-Governing Province with legitimate title. The above trees do not correspond to the land in this case and belong to the plaintiff

However, around May 2016, the Defendants committed a theft by cutting down trees owned by the Plaintiff without permission.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 18,097,50,500, and the total amount of KRW 17,145,00,00, and KRW 952,50,00, respectively, of KRW 45,00.

B. Determination 1) First of all, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff, along with his father, planted 45 weeks and 3 weeks in the instant land owned by Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. The entry of No. 4 in the evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 5, and No. 6, the testimony of the witness E is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2)