1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts ① On December 7, 1991, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name with respect to D, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, 231 square meters.

② On January 28, 2015, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer made on January 23, 2015 under their names with respect to each 1/2 share of 281 square meters in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, a neighboring land owned by the Plaintiff, F 643 square meters in total, G 162 square meters in total, and H 301 square meters in total.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff planted each of the instant trees at the edge of D land immediately after the purchase of D land. On April 1, 2016, the Defendants purchased E, etc., collected each of the instant trees at their own discretion on the grounds that each of the instant trees is on the land owned by the Defendants.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, the owner of each item of this case, sought the delivery of each item of this case against the Defendants. When enforcement of each item of this case is impossible, the Plaintiff, the owner of each item of this case, sought payment of KRW 4,741,250 corresponding to the value of each item of this case as compensation for damages from the Defendants.

The Defendants asserted each of the instant trees are planted on the land E, etc. purchased by the Defendants from the Defendants I, and the Defendants knew each of the instant trees as owned by the Defendants and transplanted some of them to another place, and removed the remainder trees.

B. The ownership of trees planted without title on the land of another person is attributed to the land owner and if the ownership is planted by title, that ownership shall be deemed to exist to the person who has planted the ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do3425 delivered on April 24, 1998). In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that each of the trees of this case was on the land owned by the Defendants. Thus, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff was aware of the boundary of D land owned by the Plaintiff and planted each of the trees of this case.