A. Of the land size of 419 square meters in Changwon-si, Changwon-si C, the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3,11, 10, 9, 8, 7.

A. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 416 square meters of Masan-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and the said forest was subject to registration conversion with respect to C large 419 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) on July 7, 2014.

B. On October 11, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land owned by the Plaintiff, 7,030 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

C. From August 1, 2013, the Defendant occupied and used the land by planting 25 mould be on the ground of part (b) of 17 square meters in the ship connected each point in sequence with the indication 1, 2, 3, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, and 1 of the attached drawing among the land owned by the Plaintiff on the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the part of the instant flood”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers), the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to collect 25 shares of trees planted in the part of the instant crime from the Plaintiff and deliver the said part of the crime, and return unjust enrichment acquired by occupying and using the said part of the crime from August 1, 2013 sought by the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not successively connect each point of the specifications 1, 2, and 3, but rather connect each point of the specifications 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, the Defendant’s boundary of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the land owned by the Defendant is consistent with the axis on the land owned by the Plaintiff. As such, the part of the instant intrusion is the land owned by the Defendant, but the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (including the serial number) are insufficient to reverse the fact of recognition, and there is no counter-proof otherwise, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

B. Furthermore, regarding the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant to the Health Unit and the F of this Court.