1. Defendant B (Appointeds) and the appointed parties:

A. The annexed drawings shall be indicated among the area of 1,703 square meters prior to D, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around April 22, 1958, the Selected E, F, and G completed the registration of ownership transfer for each 1/3 share of 1,703 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) among D prior toYcheon-gun,Ycheon-gun D (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. A around March 30, 2016, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) completed each registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance due to consultation and division on January 4, 1984 with respect to F’s share of the instant land, and Plaintiff H completed each registration of ownership transfer on March 2, 1995 with respect to the share of G’s share of the instant land on the ground of inheritance due to consultation and division.

C. Defendant B, among the instant land, planting trees, such as pine trees, landscaping trees, etc., on the 1,016 square meters of land indicated in the attached Form 1,016 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

At present, all trees on the ground of the dispute in this case were planted by Defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B for the collection of trees and delivery of land is as seen above, and as such, Defendant B is obligated to collect all trees on the land in the dispute of this case and deliver the land in this case to the Plaintiffs, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. Defendant B asserted that the land in this case was owned by a clan and is in management of the clan, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the land in this case is owned by the clans. Accordingly, Defendant B’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the land in this case is insufficient to acknowledge that the land in this case is owned by the clans Nos. 1 through 7 and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, Defendant B’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in this case’s land in this case from September 1, 2008.