logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(제주) 2015.12.16 2015나887
소유권확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. At the time the Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of the claim sold the instant land to H on October 21, 1982, the instant trees were not planted on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant trees”). Since the Plaintiff obtained permission for land use free of charge from H, and then purchased and planted seedlings of the instant trees and cultivated them for management up to now, the instant trees are owned by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. 1) On October 21, 1982, the Plaintiff sold 3,454 square meters of forest land and 2,711 square meters of G miscellaneous land owned by the Plaintiff to H. On October 21, 1982, and H sells again on November 10, 1983, I, J, K, L, M (hereinafter “I and four others”).

(2) On June 20, 2014, the Defendants sold the instant land to the Defendants and the Defendants currently owned the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, witness L of the first instance trial, N's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

B. Since the legal principles of conformity with Article 256 of the Civil Act, which purport that the owner of a real estate shall acquire ownership of an article attached to the real estate unless attached by another person’s title, are applied to the case of trees, the ownership of trees planted on the land by legitimate title, such as the right to use the land, is owned by the planting person, and does not correspond to the land, but the ownership of trees planted without such title is reverted to the landowner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da64102, Dec. 11, 2008; 2008Da64119, Nov. 2, 2008). Although the Plaintiff asserted that he/she obtained the permission for free use of the land of this case from H after selling the land of this case to H, it is difficult to believe that the entry of subparagraph 6-2 of the evidence attached thereto is, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2. The Plaintiff

arrow