1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

Except for the Defendant’s assertion, fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are recognized as legitimate in light of the evidence submitted by the first instance court. This court’s reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination”, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant asserted for further determination: (a) on May 13, 2016, when the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D and E (hereinafter “E”) for 1,326 square meters (hereinafter “instant factory site”) of the instant forest, the Defendant was unable to open the said factory site entry route (hereinafter “instant entry route”) in the instant straight line, despite that the said entry route could not be established in the instant straight line, the Defendant deceiving the Defendant as if the said entry route was to be established in the instant straight line; (b) thereafter, the Defendant opened the said straight line in the bend form without obtaining consent from the Defendant on the construction of the said straight line in the bend form.

Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for damages incurred by the defendant when the above entry route was established in the bend road of this case, and the amount of this case also has the meaning of the above damage claim security. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Judgment

Before the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities to create a site due to entry into a factory with the content that the entry roads in this case were to be established on the boundary line south of the forest of this case in the instant case in the form of the instant straight line, and the Plaintiff accepted the demand for supplementation at the time of compatibility on March 18, 2016, and received the said request for the instant application for permission in order to secure dismissal.