Method of disclosure as requirement for acquiring the ownership of standing timber

If only ownership of standing timber is transferred separately from the ground of the land, the agreement between the parties alone does not take effect on the transfer of ownership of standing timber, and it is deemed that the ownership of standing timber is acquired by the method of public disclosure on the transfer of ownership of standing timber.

Articles 185 and 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2442 delivered on February 22, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15Nu147 delivered on July 15, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 1(199)169 delivered on December 18, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 66Da2382,2383 delivered on December 18, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 2382,2383 delivered on December 29, 197; Supreme Court Decision 71Da2573 delivered on February 29, 199; Supreme Court Decision 200Da125 delivered on December 125, 197; Supreme Court Decision 186(163)288 delivered on December 28, 1972

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (73Gahap9) Gunsan Branch Court of the District Court of the first instance

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

Based on the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure of corporeal movables issued on December 12, 1972, the Defendant’s execution against Nonparty 1 on the goods indicated in the attached list among those seized on December 12, 1972 is denied. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The fact that the defendant enforced against the non-party 1 in accordance with the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure 72Ka553 of the Jeonju District Court's Gunsan Branch 72Ka53 of the judgment of provisional seizure against the non-party 1 that the standing timber in the attached list (hereinafter

The plaintiff asserts that the standing timber was owned by the plaintiff on April 25, 1971 by the non-party 1 as part of 4,50,000 won against the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's claim amounting to KRW 4,50,00,000. Thus, if the non-party 2 testified in the non-party 3, 4, and 1 as to the non-party 1's non-party 1's claim amounting to KRW 4,50,00 among the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's claim amounting to KRW 4,50,00, the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's claim amounting to KRW 2,50,000,000 and received part of the non-party 2's claim amounting to payment in kind for the plaintiff.

However, in this case where only ownership of standing timber is transferred separately from the ground of the land, the agreement between the parties alone does not take effect, and the ownership of the standing timber is acquired by the method of public disclosure as to the change of ownership of the standing timber. As to whether the Plaintiff received a substitute payment from Nonparty 1 and implemented the method of nominal acquisition, which is the requirement for the acquisition of ownership of the standing timber before the compulsory execution of this case, the Plaintiff led to the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not implement the method of nominal ownership of the standing timber at the second hearing of the court below, but at the second trial date of the court below, the Plaintiff made a confession that the said confession was made by mistake due to the lack of the method of nominal ownership from the second trial date of the court below to the extent that it is possible to distinguish who own the standing timber around May 1972, the Plaintiff was the second trial date of the court below, and the second trial method was implemented by using the so-called 7,8 wooden horse to the extent that it is possible to distinguish who own the standing timber.

The testimony to the effect that Nonparty 5, 6, and the Plaintiff’s witness made a so-called standing timber marking to enable anyone to be identified prior to the compulsory execution of the Plaintiff’s own case, and the result of the Plaintiff’s examination to the effect that it is difficult to believe in light of Nonparty 7’s testimony of the party witness Nonparty 7 and the whole purport of the party’s pleading, and that the result of the party member verification is insufficient to recognize that the party member had already carried out a well-known method at the time of this case’s compulsory execution, and that there is no data to recognize that the Plaintiff made a confession against the truth before the compulsory execution of this case, and that the confession of the Plaintiff was made by mistake against the truth. In other words, the Plaintiff’s confession is not legally revoked.

Ultimately, since the fact that the plaintiff did not implement the method of reputation prior to the compulsory execution by payment in lieu of the standing timber has no dispute between the parties, at the time of compulsory execution, the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the standing timber, and the plaintiff cannot assert that the defendant has the ownership of the standing timber. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit. The judgment of the court below in conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)