1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 13, 2013 to June 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts acknowledged as follows: (a) on January 7, 2013, B purchased trees planted in the Gangwon-gun Land D (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) on November 3, 2013, the Plaintiff delegated the authority to dispose of the said trees to the Plaintiff; (c) on November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff sold trees planted in the instant land between the Defendant and the Defendant at KRW 80 million; and (d) on November 12, 2013, the down payment of KRW 10 million shall be paid as of November 12, 2013 at the time of the contract (hereinafter “the instant purchase and sale”); (c) the Defendant did not dispute between the parties to the instant contract and paid KRW 10 million out of the down payment and KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000 among the remainder of the purchase price; or (d) concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff as of November 5, 2013 as a whole, together with evidence No. 5 and evidence No.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 40 million due to the sale of this case and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from November 13, 2013 to June 12, 2014, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, from June 3, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant purchase and sale, notified the Plaintiff of the boundary of the instant land at the time, and confirmed that the trees within the boundary of the boundary was 7 glux, and around December 2013, C had been engaged in the collection of trees, the actual boundary of the instant land was inside the boundaries notified by the Plaintiff and prevented the Defendant from doing the collection of trees outside of the boundary. Accordingly, the Defendant could collect only 33 glus by notifying the Plaintiff of the boundary of the instant land at the time of the instant sale and sale, thereby causing the Defendant to lack the collection of trees.