1. The defendant shall collect 350 pine trees planted in each real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 16, 1981, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 23, 2015 to C on July 14, 2015.
B. On the ground of each of the instant real estate, around 2010, there was 350 pine trees planted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant pine trees”), and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to transfer the said pine trees to another place on or around June 2016 upon receiving a request from C that purchased each of the instant real estate, and the Defendant promised to transfer the instant pine trees to spring in 2017, respectively.”
(C) The Plaintiff prepared and delivered the instant real estate. The result of evaluating the difference between January 1, 2010 and July 23, 2015 is KRW 3,210,478. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to collect the pine trees of this case pursuant to the letter of this case. The plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 3,210,478 with unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each of the real estate of this case, and the above KRW 3,210,478 with respect to the claim of this case and the above amount shall be from November 7, 2017 to December 7, 2017, which is obviously the day following the day when the application for alteration of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim of this case was served on the defendant, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day when the decision was rendered, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. However, although the plaintiff's claim of this case is not the owner of each of the real estate of this case, the plaintiff is not the owner of each of the real estate of this case, and there is no assertion and