1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Gyeonggi-do Urban Planning Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) was the project implementer of the development project on September 17, 2010, and agreed with the Plaintiff regarding the number of items listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff in the said project site (hereinafter “instant trees”), but the agreement was reached.

B. On December 19, 2013, upon the application of Defendant Corporation, the Central Land Committee set the date of expropriation as of February 11, 2014, and rendered a ruling of expropriation of KRW 28,650,000 for the instant trees owned by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant Corporation deposited the said compensation for losses to the deposit official of the District Court of the Jung-gu District on February 7, 2014 (No. 593).

C. Notwithstanding the above acceptance ruling, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the above acceptance ruling, and did not collect the trees of this case, and the Defendant Corporation filed an application for provisional disposition of removal order with the District Court on August 7, 2014 with the Plaintiff as the obligor (2014Kahap335) on the part of the application for provisional disposition of removal order on the trees of this case, but it was dismissed.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court (2015Ra377), and on May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was determined to the effect that “the debtor shall remove the trees of this case planted at the original place. If the debtor fails to collect the trees of this case within 12 days from the date of delivery of this decision, the creditor may delegate it to the execution officer and collect them at the debtor’s expense.”

E. Since then, the Defendant Corporation filed an application with the enforcement officer of the District Court for the replacement of the removal order under the 2015Ra353 with the Seoul High Court’s decision No. 2015Ra377 as the enforcement officer, and the said enforcement officer on June 25, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) filed an application for the replacement of the removal order execution officer, and on June 25, 2015, the said enforcement officer entered two hundred and twenty-six (26) returned pine trees and two (2) prone trees (hereinafter “the transplant trees of this case”).