1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 2291 square meters of the filed forest D (hereinafter “Plaintiff forest”) in Cheongju-si, and the Defendant C is the owner of 3283 square meters of the petitioner-gu, Cheongju-si, adjacent to the Plaintiff forest and field E (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant B is the husband of the Defendant C.

B. Defendant B received an order of recovery from the Cheongju City Mayor around July 16, 2015, and an order of supplementation around March 16, 2016, as to the act of unlawfully converting the Plaintiff’s forest land into the Plaintiff’s forest land, and received notification that the restoration was completed around April 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 10, 11 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants arbitrarily cut and occupy the part of 71m2, which connects each point of the Plaintiff’s forest land with the indication 1, 10, 11, 12, 9, and 1, of the annexed drawings, while engaging in flat work using the chills, etc. on the instant land owned by the Defendant C.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to restore damaged parts of the Plaintiff’s forest land to its original state in accordance with the purport of the claim and to compensate for damages, and are obligated to pay KRW 31,598,000 (including value-added tax) for damages, and should not interfere with the Plaintiff’s restoration work.

B. The fact that Defendant B, upon receipt of a restoration order from the Cheongju market pursuant to Article 44 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act on July 16, 2015, damaged part of the Plaintiff’s forest land by the Defendant B before July 16, 2015 is a dispute between the parties, but the fact that Defendant B was notified by the Cheongju market of the completion of restoration for the damaged part of the Plaintiff’s forest land by the Cheongju market as seen above is the fact that each of the descriptions of Nos. 4 and 10 in the Plaintiff’

It is not sufficient to recognize that reinstatement is necessary, and there is a different evidence to recognize it.