The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

The reason why our court should explain about this part of the progress of the forest tending project is that "(the plaintiff claims that the forest tending project of this case was conducted on or around December 2008, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it)" is added to the end of the first instance judgment, No. 3, No. 11, and that "1. Basic Facts" is stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes and directives.

The reasons why our court should explain concerning this part of the claim for damages due to unauthorized damage of forests and fields are as follows.

(a)the person; and

(b) Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the first instance, if a person deducts any addition of the same contents as the entry.

(a) and paragraphs 3;

A. Since it is identical to the description, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act (amended by Act No. 9961, Jan. 25, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”) refers to “former Act” and regardless of the history of amendment, the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act itself is called “Forest Resources Act”.

Article 22 shall be implemented by the owners of forest, but the State or a local government may, if deemed necessary for forest management, determine that the forest project may be implemented with the consent of the owners of forest.

On the other hand, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and all of the arguments, the defendant association applied for the designation of forest care project subject to the plaintiff's forest care project on behalf of the plaintiff as the forest care project subject to the plaintiff's forest care project, as the defendant association applied for the designation of forest care project subject to the plaintiff's forest care project on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant Crossing-gun selected the forest of this case as the forest care project subject to the forest care project of this case.