In addition, as mentioned above, the part written in this article is a basic work, and it is not visible to implement follow-up work, such as closing, etc., so the Defendants do not have any effect on the wall and column owned by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (a fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Article 256 of the Civil Act on the issue of whether a property owned by a victim is a property owned by a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles, the owner of real estate shall acquire ownership of the property attached

In order for a movable to be recognized as being consistent with real estate under Article 256 of the Civil Act, the judgment of the court below should be made by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, which are duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, (i) whether a movable is attached and buried to the extent that it cannot be separated without causing damage to or excessive expenses, and whether it can be an object of trade separate ownership with independent economic utility from existing real estate in terms of its physical structure, use and function (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15602, Sept. 24, 2009, etc.). In addition, the court below held that the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below is as follows; (ii) the defendants installed tiny board and MDF joint board (mix with fire saws and folds and processed them into heat and pressure); and (iii) this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this case includes a witness’s “exercise of right of retention, etc.”