A. The Plaintiff owns 4737 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) prior to Cheongju-si, considerable Cheongju-si, and the Defendants jointly own the E-gu, considerable 662 square meters adjacent thereto (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. The Defendant occupied the part of 5.1 square meters in the ship (C) connecting each point in order to indicate the annexed drawing(s) 32, 30, 31, and 32 among the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the affected part of this case”). The affected part of this case is sloped, and trees were planted on the ground.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 through 5 evidence (including, in the case of each number), and the result of this court’s request for surveying and appraisal to the Director of the Cheongju and Vice Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of all pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants were unfairly occupied and used after planting the trees in the course of the instant crime. As such, the Defendants asserted that they were obligated to collect the trees and deliver the land to the Plaintiff. The Defendants asserted that the trees on the ground of the instant flooded part were planted by the former owner, and only occupied the Defendant’s land at the boundary at the time of purchase, and that the Plaintiff recovered possession of the part in the course by re-breaking the pents.

B. According to the above facts of recognition 1, the defendants are obligated to collect the above trees on the ground of the affected part of this case and deliver the affected part to the plaintiff (the defendants claim that the defendant is not responsible for collecting the above trees on the ground of the affected part of this case as the former owner of the land was planted by the former owner of the defendant's land. However, since the defendants purchased the land of this case and delivered the trees to the former owner, its management responsibility is deemed to exist in the defendants.

(2) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff recovered all possession of the part of the instant crime. However, according to the video of the evidence No. 5.