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. Basic facts

A. On May 3, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one-year suspension of execution with respect to the Gwangju metropolitan District Court’s branch on November 3, 2016, on the grounds of the fact that the Defendant cuts trees, such as 12glus, on the ground surface, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one-year suspension of execution with respect to the instant land, on the ground that the Defendant cuts trees, such as 12glus, on the ground surface, from the land as cream (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. A person registered as the owner of the instant land is network D, and the Plaintiff is a person who solely succeeds to D’s property.

The Plaintiff paid property tax, etc. on the instant land in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, 12 through 14, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, without permission, damaged the land of this case and cut 12 glue trees on the ground of this case (hereinafter "the instant tree"), and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 74 million won for mental and material damages resulting from tort (i.e., at least 90 years to 90,000 won x 30 years to 30 million won x market price 10 million won for restoration expenses due to damage to the original forest of KRW 3 million) and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land and the trees planted on the ground and the manager of the graves installed on the ground. The Defendant is recognized as having caused property damage in the instant land without the Plaintiff’s permission.

Furthermore, it can be sufficiently recognized in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering. Therefore, the defendant is not only the property damage suffered by the plaintiff.