1. Of 21,322 square meters of D forest and E forest and 2,675 square meters of forest and E, the annexed drawings indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 1, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A owns 1/5 shares of E forest E 2,675 square meters (hereinafter “E forest”), and Plaintiff B owns 1/10 shares of D forest land 21,322 square meters (hereinafter “D forest”).

B. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that “A may dispose of soil and stone at will if the Defendant did not restore it to the original state by October 10, 2014,” and that “A may dispose of them at will if it does not restore it to the original state by October 10, 2014.” By February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that “A may dispose of soil and stone at will if it is not restored to the original state by October 10, 2014.”

다. 피고는 원고 A에게 위 보증금을 지급하지 않은 채 E 임야와 D 임야의 별지 도면 표시 ㄱ, ㄴ, ㄷ, ㄹ, ㅁ, ㅂ, ㅅ, ㄱ의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈎부분 8,500㎡ 지상에 토석을 가져다 놓았다. 라.

Then, on May 17, 2014, the Defendant collected earth and rocks attached to E forest land and D forest land from 8 co-owners of the Plaintiffs and D forest land until June 30, 2014, and agreed to waive ownership of the earth and rocks if not collected. The Defendant did not collect the earth and rocks despite the request of the Plaintiffs.

[Grounds for Recognition] The recommendation of confession under Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. 판단 따라서 피고는 원고들에 대하여 위 토석의 소유권을 포기하였다고 할 것이므로 위 ㈎부분 지상에 있는 모든 토석은 피고의 소유가 아니고, 피고가 위 토석의 수거의무를 이행하지 아니하여 위 토석의 소유권에 관한 법률적 불안이 존재하므로 원고들로서는 위 토석에 관한 피고의 소유권의 부존재 확인을 구할 이익도 있다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are reasonable and accepted.