1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to find out the Plaintiff’s assertion that 2,439m2 (hereinafter “C land”) was reduced without the Plaintiff’s permission.

Since these acts by the defendant infringe on the plaintiff's ownership, the defendant is obligated to pay as compensation the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in restoring the land that has been cut to its original state.

2. Determination

A. In full view of each of the statements No. 2-7, the following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) In around 2001, the Plaintiff is deemed to be D forest land 7,736 square meters (hereinafter “D land”).

) Purchasing C land from E, the owner of the land, and permitting E to use C land from around 2002. At first, E purchased C land from E and intended to use E for the purchase of that land. ii) E sold D land to the Defendant around January 201, and then its current owner is the Defendant.

3) The current status of C land is a state of cutting down at the same height as D land. B. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the fact of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the person who finds up the land in question is the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (1) The land in question appears to have been cut from around 2009 at least. Since before 2011, there is insufficient evidence as to the fact that the Defendant sawd in C or D land or exercised any right to the land in question.

2) Rather, according to the written statement submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant appears to exercise the right as the owner of the above land from around 2011, which was the time of purchase of D land, and did not directly form a farmer on D or C land.