1. The Defendant collects trees planted on the ground of 3065m2, prior to C in Sungsung-si, and delivers the said land to the Plaintiff.

2...

1. Evidence No. 1 through 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff paid the sale price on June 13, 2017 at the auction procedure (U.S. District Court D) with respect to the land of 3065 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to C in Sungsung-si, and acquired the ownership of the instant land.

B. The Defendant planted the tree, iron, etc. on the instant land.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to collect trees planted on the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, unless there is no legitimate title to occupy the land of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the former owner of the instant land was the Plaintiff, in 2007, contracted the land horizontal construction work with the Plaintiff in KRW 60 million, and the Defendant completed the land creation work for up to two months, but the E did not pay the construction cost, thereby securing the claim for the construction cost incurred on the instant land, the land is occupied by the method of directly managing 200 pine trees in the instant land in order to secure the claim for the construction cost incurred on the instant land.

B) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s instant land was already created as a flat field before 2007, and was used to set up spawn farmers for a long time. (2) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the images of the evidence No. 9 of this court’s judgment, it can be acknowledged that, according to the aerial photography taken on September 1, 2006, the instant land was already created in a flat manner and used as a dry field, and otherwise, the Defendant performed the spawn construction of the instant land.

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that there exists a claim for construction price arising from the land of this case, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant is obligated to collect the trees planted on the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.