1. The Defendants collected ginseng as planted in each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, and each of the above real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B with the terms that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was leased by designating five-year rice per annum (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the main contents thereof are as follows.

Article 3 (Change of Use, Sub-lease, etc.) No lessee shall change the purpose or structure of the above real estate, sub-lease, transfer the right of lease or offer the security, or use it for any purpose other than the purpose of lease without the consent

Article 5 (Termination of Contract) Where a lease contract is terminated, the lessee shall restore the above real estate to its original state and return it to the lessor.

Matters of special agreement

1. The lease period shall be for four years ( October 2019);

2. A dry field, if land is traded, as a dry field.

(b).

On June 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D that sells each of the instant real estate at KRW 1,050,000,000, with the purchasing price of KRW 1,050,000.

C. Defendant C cultivated ginseng on each of the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, witness D's testimony, witness E's partial testimony, and purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is obligated to collect ginseng planted in each of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, who is the owner of each of the instant real estate, and deliver each of the said real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of each of the instant real estate.

B. Defendant B’s assertion and determination that the Plaintiff would not sell each of the instant real estate at a level below KRW 1,00,000,000, while entering into the instant lease agreement, but sold each of the instant real estate at a purchase price below that amount, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.