1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim against Defendant C and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) D, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of FY 1,635 square meters of forest land in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). Plaintiff A owns 17/1635 shares in 1635 and Plaintiff B owned 1618/1635 shares in 1635.

Defendant D is the owner of the Heung-gu, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the Plaintiff’s land, the area of which is 260 square meters of forest E, G large 35 square meters of forest land, and H 4,299 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), and Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant D.

B. On August 31, 2018, Defendant D awarded to I a contract for the construction of a site for electric power resource housing to the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant site construction”).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted that the construction of the instant site was ordered by the Defendants, and did not engage in any infringement on the Plaintiff’s land, and that the Defendants were not qualified as the parties, on the grounds that they did not instruct the construction of the instant site.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the defendant standing in the lawsuit for performance is replaced by the plaintiff's claim itself, and such judgment is absorbed into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the obligor is a legitimate defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). The defendants are all parties standing in the lawsuit of this case, which is the lawsuit for performance seeking the payment of damages against the defendants.

Therefore, the defendants' main defense is without merit.

3. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. The part 1 of the claim for damages equivalent to the survey appraisal cost is that the Defendants arbitrarily removed the boundarymark for which the Plaintiffs had previously conducted a survey for the restoration of boundaries, and the Plaintiffs disbursed KRW 1,101,100 to the Plaintiffs again, and the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the same amount.