1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 8,711 square meters of land in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), and the Defendant is the owner of 29,500 square meters of land in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. The Defendant from July 2014 to the first patrolmen of the same year.

8. During the construction of grassland on the Defendant’s land, which is a stock farm site, for the Middleman, a person in charge of the FF associations cut approximately 1,281 square meters of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant land”) and caused the FF associations to cut trees, such as pine trees planted on the Plaintiff’s land, thereby impairing the utility of the instant land and the relevant trees on the ground.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). C.

The defendant on January 15, 2019

In relation to the facts described in the paragraph, the Changwon District Court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of property damage in the Changwon District Court for four months (the Changwon District Court 2017Kadan1283), and the above judgment was finalized on February 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4 through 7, Gap evidence 13 and 14 (including each number), the result of the appraisal commission to Eul corporation of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant damaged trees and land owned by the Plaintiff through the instant tort, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages equivalent to the recovery cost’s expenses, 40,000,000 won, 20,000,000 won in total, and 60,000,000 won and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant fells trees on the ground of the instant land after the tort of this case, and completed restoration work on the damaged land, thus not liable for damages any further.

Even if liability for damages is recognized, the subject land of this case is the value of exchange due to the Defendant's grassland creation project in 2015.