1. The defendant is one of the items indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 8, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 among the land size of 6,612 square meters in Gosung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 14, 1981, the Defendant completed registration of the preservation of ownership of the forest of this case 6612 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). After that, the Defendant sold part of the shares of the forest of this case to D, Plaintiff, E, and F, but D shares were purchased again by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, respectively, and the forest of this case became jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. On May 31, 2013, upon the application of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the Defendant, a creditor of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the decision to commence compulsory auction was made to the Changwon District Court through the Changwon District Court, and the compulsory auction procedure was carried out for the Defendant’s share in the instant forest. The said share was owned solely by the Plaintiff by purchasing the Plaintiff in full on October 7, 2013

C. The above H’s land adjacent to the instant forest is located on the ground that there is a housing owned by the Defendant. Of the above housing, the land of this case is affected by 84 square meters in part of the instant forest land (hereinafter “the instant part”) that connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 8, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1, which is part of the instant housing, in sequence.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove the building on the part of the instant bed and deliver the part of the instant bed to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that since the defendant planted landscaping trees and planted landscaping stone before the defendant sells the forest land of this case, it cannot deliver the affected part of this case until he is paid the price. Thus, the trees planted on the land are consistent with the land unless there is a registration of standing trees under the Standing Timber Act or a separate name and seal method, and it is consistent with the land and thus it is impossible to claim a separate ownership. Thus, the images of the Eul evidence 8-1 to 12 cannot be asserted to the defendant.