[정조인도][집16(1)민,155]
Where a person cultivates another person's farmland without legitimate authority, the owner of the farmland resulting from the cultivation shall be the owner of such farmland.
Even if a person cultivates another person’s farmland without any authority, it shall belong to that farmer.
Article 256 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 623Da913 delivered on February 21, 1963
Plaintiff
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 67Na263 delivered on November 3, 1967
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined as follows. The facts established by the court below are as follows.
In other words, while the voluntary auction procedure for the farmland of this case is in progress (for the creditor, the applicant for the auction is Nonparty 1 and the owner of the farmland of this case is Nonparty 2) to the plaintiff on July 18, 1966. The above decision was finalized on July 26, 1966 and the plaintiff paid the successful bid price on August 5, 1966, and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the plaintiff on August 22, 1966, while the plaintiff paid the successful bid price to the plaintiff on August 22, 1966.
Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the ownership of this building belongs to the defendant as the cultivator, and that even if the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the farmland as above, as seen above, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the above-mentioned farmland as a matter of course, and that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the above-mentioned farmland as a matter of course, and even if the owner of the farmland consented to the cultivation of the farmland to another person, it shall not be permitted by the Farmland Reform Act, such as the theory of domestic litigation, and even if the owner of the farmland consented to the cultivation of the farmland, the ownership of the land for the admission of the farmland due to the cultivation belongs to the owner of the farmland separate from the ownership of the farmland, even if the owner of the farmland without legitimate authority, unless there are any special circumstances. Thus, the purport of the previous precedents is that the ownership of the land for the cultivation belongs to the owner of the farmland, and therefore, it shall not be adopted as an independent opinion of attacking the original judgment.
Therefore, the grounds of appeal are groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)