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

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

A. On July 8, 1993, 1993, the title trust was completed to C, who is the Defendant’s head and representative, on the ground that the title trust was terminated on February 25, 2008, the ownership transfer registration was completed to the Defendant on March 21, 2008.

B. From March 200, the Plaintiff planted trees, night trees, bamboo trees, withering, etc. (hereinafter “the instant trees, etc.”) in the forest of this case from March 200.

C. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued by the Defendant’s representative C a written claim for compensation (hereinafter “instant agreement”) from the Defendant’s representative C to the effect that “The Plaintiff was issued a written claim for compensation to the effect that the sum of the compensation for the instant trees, etc. planted in the instant forest during the period from March 1, 200 to July 21, 2015 is KRW 54 million, and the said compensation is claimed to the Defendant.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant defense that this document was forged by the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to prove it), Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The ownership of trees planted without title on the land of another person by the owner of the trees of this case belongs to the owner of the land of this case, and in cases where the trees are planted with title, the ownership belongs to the owner of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Do1874, Sept. 30, 1980). Even in cases where crops are cultivated on the land owned by another person, the products are owned by the person who actually cultivated and cultivated them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Da613, Jun. 4, 1968). In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the health stand, evidence evidence evidence No. 1, and the purport of the argument, the Plaintiff can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff planted the trees of this case with the permission of the representative of the Defendant, who is the owner of the forest of this case, or with the implied approval of C at least, while using the forest of this case with the forest of this case.