1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant jointly with the co-defendant B of the first instance trial and on March 2013 to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff completed each registration of transfer of ownership on November 17, 2003, receipt No. 41826, Seosan District Court, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, with respect to the area of 1265 square meters and E, 1942 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

On January 16, 2008, the Defendant was the former owner of the instant land, and leased the instant land and F prior to the lease period of KRW 1,078 square meters to Codefendant B (hereinafter “B”), five years, and one million in annual rent. On January 16, 2008, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with B with respect to the instant land, with the term of lease of KRW 1,078 square meters, excluding the F prior to the lease period of KRW 1,078 square meters from the leased land between B and B around January 2013.

B From January 16, 2008 to the date of the closing of argument, the land is occupied and used by planting pine trees on the ground of the instant land.

On October 2013, the Plaintiff discovered that pine trees are planted on the instant land, and requested the Defendant to transfer the instant land and restore it to its original state on November 2013.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the respective descriptions of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the cause of claim as a whole of the pleadings, shall jointly with the Defendant, seek against the Defendant for the delivery of the instant land and the collection of trees planted on the ground of the instant land. Since the Defendant, without permission, leased the instant land to Eul, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from using the said land until the delivery of the said land, the Plaintiff sought restitution of unjust enrichment or damages equivalent

Unlike what should be done against a real possessor in the case of a claim for delivery of land and a claim for the collection of trees on the ground of an illegal possession, the other party is not limited to a direct possessor in the case of a claim for delivery pursuant to an agreement, and the other party also claims against an indirect possessor.