1. The defendant takes place the obstacles and trees in attached Table 2 on the ground of the land listed in attached Table 2 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 18, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the acquisition of the land for public use as of December 20, 2012 under the Plaintiff’s name on January 18, 2012, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 23, 2015 on the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table, under the Plaintiff’s name on August 18, 2015.

Attached Form

Each land listed in Schedule 3 and 4 is owned by the Republic of Korea.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) when one of the above lands is set aside, b. according to the sequence listed in the separate sheet.

The defendant currently owns obstacles and trees on the ground of the land No. 2 of this case by installing or planting obstacles and trees in attached Table 2.

C. Around 2015, the Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on obstacles and trees listed in attached Table 2, and the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses for the obstacles and trees as the depositee on August 12, 2015 by designating the Defendant as the depositee and deposited the compensation for losses for the said obstacles and trees as the Gu Government District Court No. 3884 in 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2 and 4-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant shall take or collect obstacles and trees in attached Table 2 on the ground of the land of this case from the plaintiff, and deliver the above land to the plaintiff.

With respect to the collection of obstacles in attached Table 1 on the ground of the instant land and the claim for delivery of the said land, it is difficult to view that the Defendant currently installed and owned obstacles in attached Table 1 on the ground of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit.

According to the evidence evidence No. 4-1, only the fact that the Defendant was compensated for losses with respect to the plastic houses, etc. on the ground B at Namyang-si, and according to the evidence No. 4-4, only the fact that the Defendant was compensated for losses with respect to the land administration, etc. on the ground C shall be recognized respectively.