1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the former owner of land D, etc. owned by Defendant C, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

Defendant B is a child of Defendant C.

B. Defendant B, on his own or by E, laid down 1 gye and 2 gye trees on bank trees located in 354 square meters of G forest in Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff’s father F (hereinafter “instant forest”).

C. On September 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants, on the part of the Defendants, by mobilized heavy equipment, breaking up the soil in the instant forest, and completing the embling work on H land, etc. owned by the Defendant C, and destroying 2 gys and gys of bank trees in the instant forest. Defendant B was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million due to the crime of causing property damage and causing property damage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion reveals that the Defendants conspired to cause damage equivalent to KRW 3,4960,000 in the cost of recovery by destroying 2 girs (30 years of receipt) and 1 girs (40 years of receipt) in the forest of this case owned by the Plaintiff, and transferred soil in the forest of this case, and caused damage equivalent to KRW 6,450,000 in the cost of recovery by filled up the forest of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 4,1410,000 won to the Plaintiff for damages caused by unlawful acts.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant C did not entirely participate in the Plaintiff’s act. Defendant B merely removed trees immediately before they were used in the instant forest for the purpose of the housing safety, and did not bring about soil in the instant forest. 2) Since the instant forest land was owned by the Plaintiff’s husband, it cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s property, and even if owned by the Plaintiff, the amount of damages claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. First of all, the plaintiff.