It is clear that Gap evidence Nos. 3 (the plaintiff has no own farmland) and Gap evidence Nos. 6 (the plaintiff's certificate of e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e

The second ground of appeal is examined.

The judgment of the court below ruled that even if the plaintiff cultivated the house of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not acquire ownership of the land of this case without title even though he cultivated the house of this case on the ground of the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's claim as to the house of this case, the plaintiff did not acquire ownership of the land of this case on the ground that the plaintiff cultivated the land of another person without title. However, if the plaintiff had a existence as an independent object due to the plaintiff's act of cultivation on the land of this case on the land of this case, it should be dealt with separately, and there is no legal principle that the ownership of this case should be attributed to the plaintiff, and even if the land owner is not an object belonging to this real estate, the court below did not have to have investigated more about the maturity and degree of maturity of the contents of the land of this case on the ground that the plaintiff cultivated the land of this case on the ground that there is no ownership of the land of this case on the ground that the plaintiff cultivated the land of this case without title.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Supreme Court Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-chul(Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, Kim Ho-soon, Mag-man, Manb