1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the forest land in Jeonnam-gun C (hereinafter “instant forest”)

B. On December 2010, the Defendant: (a) completed a forest management plan report in the Masung-gun; and (b) cut standing timber on D 0.1 (hereinafter “instant adjacent forest”).

C. At the time, the Defendant confirmed that, prior to the felling of standing timber on the instant adjacent forest, the boundary between the instant adjacent forest and the instant forest is ambiguous, the Plaintiff’s father’s father’s boundary was confirmed, and that he felled according to the boundary known by the Deceased.

However, the boundary known by the Deceased was different from the actual boundary, resulting in the Defendant’s wrong cutting of 158 standing timber planted in the instant forest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) cut standing timber planted in the forest of this case without permission. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered losses of KRW 29,500,000, which is equivalent to the market price of the forest of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 29,500,000 won and damages for delay due to the tort.

(2) The Defendant committed an act of cutting down trees with trust and trust on the boundary known by the Deceased. Since the boundary known by the Deceased was different from the actual boundary, the Defendant erroneously cut down 158 standing timber trees planted in the instant forest, there was no intention or negligence on the part of the Deceased.

B. In order to hold the Defendant liable for tort, there must be intention or negligence in addition to the Defendant’s harmful act.

The fact that the Defendant cut 158 standing timber owned by the Plaintiff, which was planted in the instant forest, is as seen earlier, but the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings recognized earlier.