1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is ordered to pay the following amount against the defendant C.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendants for non-performance of obligations under the contract dated December 17, 2009 and the claim for damages arising out of non-performance of obligations under the respective agreements dated November 2010 and the respective agreements dated December 2010 against the Defendants. The court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants, and the Plaintiff appealed.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment prior to remand revoked the part of the judgment against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount of 14,728,500 won for damages and the damages for delay on the ground of the non-performance of obligations under the letter of the order of December 2010, and rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to pay the above amount.

With respect to the above judgment, only the defendants appealed to the part against the defendants, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court prior to remand and remanded the case to the court of original instance.

Therefore, since the part of the judgment before the remand that the plaintiff did not appeal is separately confirmed, the scope of the judgment after the remand is limited to 14,728,500 won and the claim for damages for delay caused by the non-performance of obligations under the letter of order of December 2010.

2. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) prescribed the name holder of the permission as “stock company E”; (b) the purpose of exclusive use as “development of a site for entry into a general house and an entry into a site”; and (c) the period of exclusive use as “from October 17, 2005 to October 20, 207” with regard to the area of 8,905 square meters among the 73,388 square meters of female-gun D forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”); and (d) “the first conversion of a mountainous district below the conversion of a mountainous district”, respectively.

In addition, on December 4, 2007, the head of Si/Gun revoked the first conversion permission on the ground that the said conversion purpose project has not been completed, and notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the first conversion permission on the ground that the said conversion period has expired, and the Plaintiff’s restoration of the instant forest by February 28, 2008.

B. The Plaintiff around March 2010.