1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, who was the owner of C-Y 496 square meters, D-Y 321 square meters, E-Y 165 square meters, and F-Y 320 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), was permitted by the Plaintiff, who was the owner of C-Y 496 square meters, and was in possession of 497 square meters on the instant land from March 10, 209.

However, the Defendant sold the instant land to G on October 14, 2015, and caused G to acquire the said returned seedlings in good faith by selling the instant land without the Plaintiff’s permission.

Accordingly, since the plaintiff lost ownership of the above returned seedlings, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of KRW 49,700,000, which is equivalent to the market price of the above returned seedlings, and damages for delay.

B. In a case where planting trees on the land owned by others, when planting trees on the land owned by others, the ownership of the trees is planted. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading evidence No. 3, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff planted the above returned seedlings on the land of this case with the permission of the defendant, so the plaintiff planting the above returned seedlings on the land of this case with the permission of the defendant. Thus, the planting of the above returned seedlings on the land of this case does not correspond to the land of this case (Supreme Court Order 89Meu21095 Dated January 23, 1990). Thus, the above returned seedlings is a separate movable property. Accordingly, each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 (including a serial number) is sufficient to recognize that the defendant sold the land of this case to the deceased G, including the return of the above seedlings, and that the net purchased them in good faith, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise.

Therefore, when the defendant sells the instant land to the deceased G, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant on the premise that the deceased G included the above return seedlings and acquired it in good faith.