소유권확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following portion “2. height”, it is acceptable to
2. On the second and second sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the parallel 4 to 3 pages are as follows.
Article 256 of the Civil Code provides, “The owner of a real estate shall acquire the ownership of an article attached to the real estate. However, the same shall not apply to the article attached by another person’s title.”
The term "right holder" as referred to in the proviso of the above Article refers to the right to use real estate by adding a movable property to another person's real estate, such as superficies, right to lease on a deposit basis, right to lease on a deposit basis, right to lease on a deposit basis, etc. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the owner of land cannot claim the ownership of a tree, unless
(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da69907 Decided March 15, 2018). In order to be deemed that Oral trees planted in the part of the instant issue are owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should have planted the Oral trees owned by the Plaintiff while having the right to use the key issues of this case, such as the right of lease.
First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff had the right to use the key part of the instant case, such as the right of lease, at the time when the instant trees were planted.
The first instance trial witness H, the owner of the key issue part of the instant case, testified to the effect that “the Plaintiff permitted the planting of the trees in the forest of this case on the Old Day. When that time, the time is not memory, there was no accurate planting place or area, and whether a tree was planted.” The said testimony alone can use the key part of the instant case, such as the right of lease, etc., to the Plaintiff at the time when the timber of this case is planted.