1. The defendant shall collect all the trees planted on each land listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, and each of the above land.

The Plaintiff, as the owner of each land indicated in the attached list (the former 1,133 square meters and the former 726 square meters were divided on July 11, 2006, around December 27, 201, he re-merged with the former 1,133 square meters again on or around December 27, 2011; hereinafter collectively referred to as “each land of this case”) on or around May 18, 2006, as the owner of each land indicated in the attached list, leased each of the above land to the Defendant from May 18, 2005 to May 17, 2008; thereafter, the above lease was renewed from May 15, 2014 to June 15, 2014; the Plaintiff, after the expiration of the lease term, did not request the Defendant to collect each of the above land from each of the above parties, or did not request the Defendant to present each of the above 3-mentioned land to occupy each of the above 1,014 square meters.

According to the above facts, since the above lease contract has expired, the defendant is obligated to collect all trees planted on each of the land of this case and deliver each of the above land to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the term of the above lease agreement was set by June 15, 2014 because the general term of lease was two years, and that it is not so set within the meaning of restoration, such as collecting trees on the land actually above, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.