Whether it can be seen that the possessory right of the land provided to “B” can be impliedly approved to “B” in the event that the part of the land provided to “B” for payment in kind has been planted from the previous to “B” at an appropriate time for the transplant or for a reasonable period of time for transplant

If "B" points out a part of land provided as a payment in lieu of the price for the work from the previous to the "B", it is reasonable to interpret that he/she impliedly approves the possessor's right of possession of the part of land for a reasonable period of time or for transplantation of the tree, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

Dong Dam Construction Company

Attorney Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na786 delivered on January 23, 1976

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Judgment on Defendant’s ground of appeal

For that reason, the original judgment recognized that the real estate was originally owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff completed the construction work contracted by the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 9, 1973 in the name of the Plaintiff on the payment for the construction price. Accordingly, the above real estate was recognized as owned by the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant occupied and used seedlings on the ground of 773 square meters of the above real estate, and transplanted it to another place on December 13, 1974, and the Defendant acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership on February 9, 1973 of the above site from February 13, 1974 to December 13, 1974. Accordingly, the Defendant was liable to pay KRW 2,13,956 to the Plaintiff on the ground of the above real estate.

However, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's acquisition of land ownership in this case was a substitute payment for the construction cost against the defendant, and under the same circumstances as the case in which the defendant was suffering from planting seedlings on the ground of 1,658 of total 773 of the real estate at around 1,658, the defendant was an agreement between the parties on the purpose of planting the seedlings to a third party, and that there was an implied approval of the right of possession of the land in this part for an appropriate time or transplant for transplantation of the seedlings, unless there is no separate declaration of intention, and even if there is proof, the court below determined that the defendant got benefits from the possession of the land without any legal cause without examining such circumstance and facts. It is not sufficient to reverse the judgment of the defendant's assertion, but there is a violation of the law of lack of reasoning due to lack of evidence and violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground to reverse the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)

Justices Dra-ro shall have an obstacle to signing and sealing.