1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 22, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares in relation to D forest land 8,701 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 30, 202, the Plaintiff transferred the said 1/2 shares to E on April 30, 2002.

B. In order to prevent the collapse of the F forest land owned by the Defendant C, Busan, which was adjacent to the instant land, (hereinafter “Defendant C’s land”), during the construction of a road around December 2002, the Plaintiff installed 10 beam beam beam lines between the instant land and the Defendant C’s land in order to prevent the collapse.

C. Around October 6, 2013, Defendant B was the owner of Busan-gun G (hereinafter “Defendant B’s land”) adjacent to the instant land, and around 2-3 meters high between the instant land and the Defendant C’s land, Defendant B removed four sn beam beam lines installed by the Plaintiff using snicks (hereinafter “instant Hn beamline”).

On the same day, Defendant B transferred the instant H beam beam to Defendant C, the market value of which is 2 million won, and Defendant C transferred the H beam beam to H on the same day.

E. On June 16, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million in the case of Defendant B, and KRW 2 million in the case of Defendant C, respectively, on the grounds that “the Defendant conspiredd on October 6, 2013, and stolen four sn beam lines owned by the Plaintiff,” and that “the Defendant stolen four sn beam beam lines owned by the Plaintiff.”

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6; Eul evidence 1 through 12; Eul evidence 5, 6; 10-1, 11-2; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay jointly the Plaintiff KRW 2,00,000,000 and damages for delay of the H beam four market prices as damages.

The plaintiff asserts that the market value of the sn beam of this case is at least KRW 10 million, and thus, the sn beam of this case is merely the sn beam statement with Gap evidence No. 4.