1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, along with C, D, E, etc. on September 30, 2003, entered into a sales contract to purchase 7,920 square meters of F forest land in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si (hereinafter “instant forest”) from G, the former owner, one-fourths of shares, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2003.

B. On December 12, 2013, the Defendant purchased a parcel of land of 274 square meters adjacent to the instant forest and completed the registration of ownership transfer. On October 10, 2014, the Defendant filed a report on construction of a temporary building for a temporary warehouse to be used as a farming shed on the land above, and installed two buildings without filing the said report on a temporary building and one building used for any other purpose (hereinafter referred to as the “instant temporary building”) with the said reported temporary building and one building used for any other purpose.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, each film No. 1-2, the fact-finding inquiry and reply about the construction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction Authority in the court of first instance, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Defendant neglected to manage the forest of this case, the land owned by the Plaintiff was lost due to landslide caused by the Defendant’s negligence in managing the forest of this case. The Plaintiff cut away miscellaneous trees and miscellaneous banks, etc., which are not necessary for the forest of this case, and generated mycoi, etc. in the instant temporary building, and the instant temporary building was damaged by flooding, etc. on the grounds that drainage has not been secured on the forest of this case, and thus, the Defendant was obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the said unlawful act.

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant caused damage to the Plaintiff as alleged in the instant forest by erroneously managing or neglecting the forest land, and various damages asserted by the Plaintiff are on the ground that the Plaintiff purchased the land adjacent to the instant forest land jointly owned by the Defendant.