1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 9,00,000 and 5% per annum from January 1, 2013 to September 17, 2015.

1. Determination as to claim for damages against Defendant B

A. (1) On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff sold to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) the purchase price of KRW 36,000,000, KRW 6,388 square meters of E forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest part”) and KRW 198 square meters of G forest owned by H (I received inheritance on January 24, 2013), KRW 194 square meters of J forest, KRW 163 square meters of L forest owned by K (hereinafter “third party’s land adjoining the instant forest”) owned by the Plaintiff, and KRW 336,00,000 of sale price.

(2) At the time of the sale, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer to D all graves on the ground of the third party’s land owned by D at the time of the sale.

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a consulting agreement with M to deal with the forest part of the instant forest and all the affairs necessary for the relocation of the grave located on the ground of the land owned by the third party (such as consultation with the cemetery owner, the preparation of a substitute land to be removed, etc.). Defendant B, who introduced M, arbitrarily dealt with the affairs under the said agreement.

Since then, the plaintiff, who became aware of this, ratified this, a consulting contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant with the same content as the contract entered into with M.

However, Defendant B did not complete the transfer of two graves on the ground of the instant forest part.

In addition, a special agreement was concluded between Defendant B and D to bear half of the costs incurred prior to the two occasions of the said grave, on the ground that it would suffice for Defendant B to pay half of the consulting costs originally paid to the Plaintiff, and that the total amount of KRW 10 million would be sufficient.

However, the second half of the said grave was actually spent by the expenses of KRW 30 million, and D asserts that it is not the expenses actually paid, but only KRW 5 million equivalent to KRW 1/2 of the defendant's referenced as the expenses.