1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district (hereinafter “the first conversion of a mountainous district”) from the head of a Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the title holder with respect to the 8,905 square meters of land D 73,38 square meters of female-gun D 73,388 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”). On October 17, 2005, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the first conversion of a mountainous district on the ground that the said diversion period was terminated in the situation where the said diversion period was not completed, while the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant forest will be restored to the instant forest by not later than February 28, 2008.

B. On March 2010, the Plaintiff again delegated the name holder of permission with respect to the 3,976 square meters of the instant forest from the head of Si/Gun, to Si/Gun, for the purpose of exclusive use, to “F Co., Ltd.,” “housing site and road site,” and each period of exclusive use, and obtained permission for mountainous district conversion (hereinafter “second permission for mountainous district conversion”) by determining the period from March 201 to December 30, 201, and then delegated the same to H who operates G (hereinafter “G”) around December 201, the Plaintiff filed a report on the change of the permission for mountainous district conversion with the head of Si/Gun, which prescribed the name holder of permission for mountainous district conversion from March 31, 2010 to “the development of a site for religious facilities,” and the period of exclusive use from November 30, 2013.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, and 15 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages, restitution, etc. against the Defendants, the Defendants are parties to the delegation contract related to the first permission for mountainous district conversion as follows. Since the parties to the delegation contract related to the second permission for mountainous district conversion are stock companies F and Defendant C, the Plaintiff, which is the representative of each of the above companies, did not have the standing to sue, and thus, in the instant lawsuit for lives and performance, the Plaintiff is one of the parties.