1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

around February 20, 2014, the Defendant planted trees 1,800 glus (hereinafter “instant trees”) on the Dong-gu Seoul-gu, Gwangju, owned by the Plaintiff, and received KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

B. However, more than 90% of the instant trees died after approximately 3-4 months thereafter.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) was planting the instant tree in such a situation as to make the instant tree too short without breaking balsing down (to string down the roots to fix their soil); and (b) did not perform the duty to manage the instant tree thereafter.

Because of the defendant's above mistake, more than 90% of the trees of this case died.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused thereby.

B. The written statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant planted the tree of this case in the state that the defendant did not grow up with the tree of this case and was liable to manage the tree of this case after planting the tree of this case, and there is no other evidence.

(1) The Defendant asserts that the tree of this case was well-known for about 100 days after planting the tree of this case, and that the Defendant did not know about the expenses incurred in managing the tree of this case in order to provide management services after planting the tree of this case, and that there was no money in the name of the management expenses. In such a situation, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not conclude a contract with the Plaintiff on the management expenses, and that there was no money in the name of the management expenses. The fact that the tree of this case died around about 100 days after planting, and that there was no money in the name of the management expenses. In such a situation, the Defendant’s negligence or management negligence cannot be recognized).