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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On July 2, 2015, G completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the ground of “the prescriptive acquisition on December 13, 2005,” with respect to “F-owned 1,260 square meters prior to Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si.” The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the ground of “the prescriptive acquisition on July 2, 2015,” and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the said land on July 2, 2015.”

B. On December 22, 2016, the land of 1,260 square meters prior to Sinju-si E was divided into each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is an individual business operator engaged in landscaping business with the trade name of “D,” and from around 207, after planting each of the trees listed in the attached Table 2 list on each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant trees”).

Each of the instant lands was included in the “N Corporation” project site that was publicly announced by the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office on February 19, 2017, and accordingly, the instant trees were included in the obstacles subject to expropriation compensation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 10 and video (including branch numbers, respectively), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that K of the Plaintiff’s lodging room obtained permission for the use of each of the instant lands and the profits therefrom from F, the former owner of each of the instant lands, under the condition that K of the Plaintiff would manage F-W graves, and thereafter, the Plaintiff-friendly L of the Plaintiff cultivated orchard on each of the instant lands by succeeding to the right to use and profit therefrom, and around 2007, the Plaintiff received by succession from L of the said trees and re- standing the instant trees on the instant orchard, and managed them until now. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem the instant trees as owned by the Plaintiff.

B. Article 256 of the Civil Act provides that “The owner of an immovable shall acquire the ownership of an article attached to the immovable.

However, the same shall not apply to those attached by another person's source.