1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall return unjust enrichment to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the size of 535 square meters per Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 6, 1973, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of 535 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land is in narrow and long-term form, such as the indication of the attached appraisal drawings, and is adjacent to the land owned by Defendant B.

C. From around 2015, the Defendants planted bamboo seedlings on the ground of the instant land, such as the attached appraisal drawings. D.

On the other hand, in 1987, the Plaintiff and the Defendants owned farmland adjustment and disposition of replotting regarding the land of the Republic of Korea in the Nam-gu, Dong-gu and Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and the land of this case. However, the land of this case was substituted by the land of this case in the 1792 square meters in the Do-dong, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, 1973.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The arguments of the parties and the issues of the instant case

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have concluded a title trust agreement with Defendant C on the instant land, and did not allow the Defendants to cultivate the instant land or occupied the instant land by Defendant C only when the instant land was abandoned for a considerable period after replotting.

Ultimately, since the Defendants interfere with the Plaintiff’s ownership by planting substitute trees on the instant land, the Defendants are obligated to collect the said substitute trees from the Plaintiff and deliver the instant land.

B. In around 1987, Defendant C’s assertion was unable to acquire ownership of part of the land of Defendant C in accordance with the former Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act during the replotting process, Defendant C paid the liquidation money for replotting between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, but entered into a title trust agreement on the land of this case under the name of the Plaintiff with the agreement to receive a substitute.