1. The Defendants connect each point of the attached reference marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, among the area of 723 square meters on the E-road in Jinju-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 773 square meters prior to the F. The Defendants, as married couple, share the G orchard 18,083 square meters adjacent to the said land in Jinju-si.

B. On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Republic of Korea to use and benefit from part of the E-road 723 square meters and H road 232 square meters, which is owned by the Republic of Korea, from the Republic of Korea. From April 2015, the Plaintiff leased each of the above land from the Jinju branch office of the Korea Highway Corporation, which is the management agency.

C. The Defendants installed iron rail lines at the points connected with each point in the order of marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the attached reference table among the land size of 723 square meters in Jinju-si, E. 723 square meters in possession of the Plaintiff, and planted three tin trees at the points connected with each point in the attached table 4, 5.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10, 16, 17 (if there are numbers, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 8, images of Gap evidence No. 9, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the judgment on the claim for exclusion of disturbance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obliged to collect three of the above iron lines and tin trees from the Plaintiff and not to prevent the Plaintiff’s access to the above land as well as to collect three of the above land by planting three of tin trees at the location connecting each point of the attached reference Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 with reference to the attached Table No. 723 square meters in Jinju-si, Jin-si. In the absence of special circumstances. Thus, the Defendants are obliged not to obstruct the Plaintiff’s right of possession of the above land by planting three of tin trees at the location connecting each point of No. 4 and 5.

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they did not have the right of ownership, such as ownership, and thus, the lawsuit arising from the right of possession cannot be tried on the ground of principal right (Article 208(2) of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is going forward.