1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) collect the trees planted on the land listed in the separate sheet and enter them in the separate sheet;

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 9 and 1 evidence, the fact that the Plaintiff, the owner of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) leased the instant land to the Defendant on March 7, 2008, and that the original Defendant agreed to the lease term from March 7, 2008 to March 7, 2018, respectively, at KRW 800,000 per annum.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant voluntarily acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff and that he planted trees on the instant land.

C. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the lease contract that the original defendant concluded on March 7, 2008 with respect to the instant land was terminated after the expiration of the period on March 7, 2018.

Meanwhile, since the trees planted by the Defendant on the instant land interfere with the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land, the Plaintiff may request the Defendant to remove interference.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, is obligated to collect trees planted on the instant land, deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 800,000 per annum from January 16, 2020 to the completion date of delivery of the copy of the complaint as sought by the Plaintiff, as well as from January 16, 2020 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff received the direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. (hereinafter “direct payments”) regarding the instant land, and that the subsidies should be received by the Defendant who directly cultivated the farmer, but the Plaintiff received the subsidies unlawfully. Therefore, the subsidies received by the Plaintiff from the 4 million won in arrears should be deducted, and that the 1,449,130 won in arrears should be returned to the Defendant.

(b) Act on the Operation of Direct Payment System in Improvement of Public Functions of Agriculture and Rural Community;