1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) 2.

1. Family relationship;

A. The Defendant married with C, but divorced around 2006, and had children D and E among them.

B. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff married with C, and C died on December 14, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “C”) . C.

F is the mother of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. Basic facts 1) F is 2,768 square meters per annum 2,768 square meters per annum (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Defendant sold the instant land to H on May 30, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 14, 2008 on the ground of the sale on February 3, 1992, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 27, 2008 on the ground of the donation from May 23, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On April 5, 2008, the Deceased, who was under contact with F and was in contact with F even after being divorced by the Defendant, was granted on the F on April 5, 2008, “the authority to plant and collect after planting the pop-up tree on the instant land, the authority to collect them, and to carry out the method of nameing. 2) After that, the Deceased growing the pop-up tree into a commercialized by planting approximately 3,000gs and continuously managing it on the instant land.

3) However, even though the Defendant was well aware of the above circumstances, around May 30, 2013, sold 80 pop-up trees owned by the deceased, which existed at the time of the instant land and its ground, to H, and did not separately calculate the price of the pop-up trees. At present, the above pop-up trees are left unattended immediately before the death without any commercial characteristics. Accordingly, the Defendant sold the instant land to H without any limit with the deceased, thereby incurring damage equivalent to the value of the pop-up tree planted on the ground, and thus, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s heir.