1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 (including additional numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, each of the real estate in this case was owned by Eul, Eul died on April 6, 2004, and Eul and the Defendants were the wife F and its children, but the Defendants were the wife F and F, due to the waiver of inheritance. The Defendants died on September 29, 2008, and were their inheritors, and the Defendants were their children. On the other hand, G was the birth of Eul and H was the wife of G, and there is no counter-proof.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was owned by H 370 percent of pine trees planted on the ground of each of the instant real estate.

On June 4, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased 370 pine trees from H’s agent G.

Therefore, the Defendants should deliver the said pine trees to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment, the fact that a contract for the sale of trees of the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded between the Plaintiff and H’s agent G is recognized.

However, only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including the paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize that pine trees planted on the ground of each of the instant real estate owned by H, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lawfully acquired the ownership of the said pine trees solely on the basis of the above fact of recognition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.