1. Defendant C collects KRW 100 of tree trees planted on the land listed in the attached list No. 1, and the Defendants respectively.

1. Determination on the removal of buildings and the removal of trees

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 2, the Plaintiff purchased the land listed in Attachment No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) on March 11, 2005 at auction. Defendant B purchased the building listed in Attachment No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) constructed on the instant land, and Defendant C had owned 100 times before the Plaintiff purchased the instant land at auction. As such, Defendant C had a duty to remove the instant building to the Plaintiff unless the Defendants had a legitimate title to possess the instant building and trees, and collect the trees of this case.

B. The defendants asserted that D, the former owner of the instant land, owned the instant building and ship trees, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 2, 200 after selling the instant land to Defendant C on October 2, 200, and D acquired customary statutory superficies. Since D purchased the instant building and ship trees and succeeded to customary statutory superficies, the defendants asserted that C, the former owner of the instant land, acquired the instant land from Defendant C on October 2, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 4, 200, and acquired the instant land on October 14, 205, Defendant C acquired the instant land from Defendant C on June 2, 201, and Defendant C acquired the instant land from Defendant C on June 1, 207, 207, taking account of the overall purport of the arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, as well as the overall purport of the arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2000.