1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. At Jeju, the number of trees listed in the separate sheet, planted on the land of 14,552 square meters of C forest land at Jeju, shall be collected.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of C forest land 14,552 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On the instant land, trees listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant trees”) are planted, and the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant trees around February 2015.

C. From March 24, 2016 to September 23, 2016, the actual rent of the instant land was calculated as KRW 7,091,557 (i.e., KRW 1,181,926 per month, KRW 926 per month; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as the owner of the trees of this case, possesses the land of this case through the trees of this case, and as long as the source of possession right is not proven, the defendant is obligated to collect the trees of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the obstruction of possession

In addition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 25, 2016 to November 5, 2017, 19,390,062 won (1,181,926 won x 12 x 49/365, and penalty for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from November 17, 2017, the day following the delivery date of the written complaint to the day of full payment, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 1,181,926 won each month from November 6, 2017 to the day the delivery of the instant land is completed.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that D et al. occupied and managed the instant trees by planting them in 2 to 30 years, and that it had the right to possess the instant land since it purchased the instant trees from E Bank, which is the former owner, and lawfully acquired the ownership of the instant trees. However, the Defendant is merely the process of acquiring the ownership of the instant trees, and it cannot be an assertion against the possessory right to the instant land.