1. The Defendant shall deliver the Plaintiff a forest land of 5130 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant forest by winning a successful bid in the procedure for compulsory auction (Cheongju District Court D; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) concerning the forest land as stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant forest land”) on September 16, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 19, 2014.

B. On the instant forest land, approximately 129 weeks of night tree, approximately 4 weeks of fluorum tree, approximately 12 weeks of fluorum tree, and approximately 2 weeks of stratoo tree (hereinafter “instant tree”). The Defendant occupied the instant forest land while managing it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion acquired ownership of the forest of this case in the auction procedure of this case, and the defendant planted the forest of this case without legitimate title, such as obtaining consent to use the forest of this case from the plaintiff's former owner, and therefore, the trees of this case were consistent with the forest of this case pursuant to Article 256 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant who illegally occupies the forest of this case without a title is obligated to deliver the forest of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion was planted before the instant auction procedure. It was not only a master method, which is the publication method for the ownership of trees, but also a master method, which is the Defendant’s reasoning, leased the instant tree from F, the former owner of the instant forest, to grow fruit trees by planting fruit trees in accordance with the State’s policy, and planting the instant tree. Thus, it is deemed that the instant tree belongs to the Defendant’s ownership separate from the instant forest.

Therefore, the defendant exercises his right to purchase the trees of this case against the plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of Articles 643 and 283 of the Civil Code, and accordingly, until the plaintiff purchases the trees of this case.