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

A. On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the purport of using each of the instant land, etc. owned by the Republic of Korea as farmland; from April 29, 2015 to April 28, 2020; and from April 29, 2015 to April 28, 2020, with the loan fee of KRW 929,550 per annum.

B. The Defendant, in March 2018, cultivated crops from each of the instant land in the instant land to B, and occupied each of the instant land by planting crops on March 2019.

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted on April 29, 2015, concluded a loan agreement with the Republic of Korea, the owner of each of the instant land, and cultivated and harvested ginseng on September 2018, together with C.

However, since the Defendant, without any title, cultivates the future in each land of this case without planting it, the Defendant sought delivery of each land of this case against the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff appears to have sought delivery of each of the instant lands based on the loan agreement concluded with the Republic of Korea. However, it cannot be deemed that the loan agreement is merely a claim contract, and the validity of the loan agreement extends to the Defendant, not a party

B. Even if the Plaintiff seeks to transfer each of the instant lands against the Defendant based on the right to claim the recovery of possession under Article 204 of the Civil Act, in order to recognize the right to claim the recovery of possession under Article 204 of the Civil Act, there must be a deprivation of possession in order to recognize the right to claim the recovery of possession, and the deprivation of possession refers to the loss of direct possession by the direct occupant without his own intention, and the Plaintiff is recognized as having no direct possession of each of the instant lands.

Therefore, since the defendant cannot be deemed to have deprived of the plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff's right to claim the recovery of possession shall arise.