1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 31, 2007, Gwangju Metropolitan City, which implemented the Defendant’s development project, performed a D development project (hereinafter “instant development project”) on a size of 1,876,00 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu, J, K, K, and L Daywon 1,876,00 square meters, and thereafter on December 15, 2010, the implementor of the said development project was changed to the Defendant.

B. On April 24, 2007, the Plaintiff and E’s Dong business and landscape trees planting Plaintiff entered into a partnership business agreement with the following contents (hereinafter “instant partnership business agreement”) in order to determine the issue of business allocation and profit distribution related to planting landscape trees to approximately 7,500 square meters of the F of the Gwangju Mine-gu, a project area for the instant development project (hereinafter “instant land”). On the ground of the instant land, a large number of landscape trees (hereinafter “instant trees”) were planted on the instant land.

Article 1 (Sharing of Duties) E is responsible for and leased the land of this case and is responsible for the management of landscape trees, such as spraying of pesticides and water cycles.

The plaintiff plant landscaped trees on the land of this case at the plaintiff's expense.

Article 2 (Obligation to Distribution Profits) The plaintiff and E shall distribute all profits (compensations, transplant costs, etc.) from landscaping trees to one half each, respectively, and the landscape trees transplanted therefrom shall revert to the plaintiff.

C. After 1) from 2010 to 2010, E decided to take charge of consultation on the compensation of the trees of this case with the Plaintiff’s consent, and in the course of consultation with the Defendant’s working-level, E refused to receive the compensation provided by the Defendant on the ground that the compensation calculated through the appraisal of the trees of this case is less than the amount of compensation calculated. However, on June 27, 2012, E refused to receive the compensation provided by the Defendant on the ground that the compensation calculated through the appraisal of the trees of this case is less than the amount of compensation. The Defendant, on June 27, 2012, G with the deposited person G, was 68,731.