1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are part of the three-year children of the deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. Around 2002, various trees were planted on the ground of H 2,116 square meters (hereinafter “land before partition”) before the partition, which was owned by the deceased.

C. The Deceased died on November 27, 2007, and the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land before subdivision due to a consultation and division on April 24, 2008.

The part of the land before subdivision was incorporated into a site for the I project implemented by the State, and the said land was divided into the area of 713 square meters before JJ (hereinafter “instant land”) and the area of 1,403 square meters before H, which is the remainder of the portion incorporated into the said project on December 16, 2016. The instant land was expropriated by the State on February 7, 2018.

E. On February 6, 2018, the Korea Rural Community Corporation, an institution entrusted with the duties of the State (the Administrator of the Agency for the Construction of Multifunctional Administrative City) deposited KRW 39,583,000 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) as compensation for trees, such as pine trees, Rose of Sharon trees, pine trees, and lebane trees, etc. planted on the instant land by designating the Plaintiff and the Defendants as a deposit account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff planted the trees of this case purchased by the plaintiff on the land of this case with the permission of the deceased around 2002 and managed them until now. Since the above trees were planted by the plaintiff based on the right to loan the use of the above land, the plaintiff has ownership.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the refund of the instant deposit.

3. We examine whether the Plaintiff has ownership of the instant trees.

Facts acknowledged above and evidence Nos. 2 and 3.