1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) planting 140 gone tree on the land of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu; and (b) thereafter, the said land was incorporated into a public project site; and (c) the Defendant, entrusted by the Plaintiff, submitted the documents pertaining to the receipt of compensation for the said tree on October 2005, and submitted the documents related to the receipt of compensation for the said tree to the Defendant, as if the said tree was owned by the Korea Land Corporation,

Therefore, although the plaintiff demanded the return of the above compensation, the defendant embezzled the above compensation amount due to the defendant's refusal to return it, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Recognizing the facts 1) The Plaintiff is the D clan from September 5, 2005 to March 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant clan”).

2) On October 6, 2005, among them, 187 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided and expropriated in the Korea Land Corporation, which was originally owned by the instant clan, Seowon-gu, Seowon-gu, Seowon-si, and 536 square meters.

The Defendant received compensation of KRW 100,850,000 (hereinafter “instant compensation”) from the Korea Land Corporation on October 11, 2005, as the owner of 100 fruit trees and one agricultural colon (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) that are obstacles to the instant land expropriation procedures.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant received the compensation of this case as the owner of the obstacles of this case, but further, considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant acquired the compensation from the Korea Land Corporation by deceiving the obstacles of this case owned by the Plaintiff as owned by the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that the return was unjustly refused, and rather, according to the evidence No. 6, the defendant agreed on the compensation for the obstacles of this case with the Korea Land Corporation.