Owners of agricultural crops on farmland;

It is owned by a person who has cultivated crops, such as an entrance and poppy, even though they are on the land owned by the plaintiff.

Article 256 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da913 delivered on February 21, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 11Nu1199, Supreme Court Decision 256Da338 delivered on June 4, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 68Da613,614 delivered on June 4, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1995 delivered on November 30, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 9294 delivered on June 18, 198, Supreme Court Decision 18Da330 delivered on November 330, 200)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (73 Gohap102, 73 Gohap102)

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The execution by the defendant against the non-party 1 based on an executory exemplification of the judgment in the case No. 73 Ma39 against the Jeonju District Court 73 Ma39 shall not be permitted.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

As compulsory execution against the non-party 1, the fact that the defendant seizes the claims based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in Jeonju District Court 73Kahap39 case, which is a compulsory execution against the non-party 1, does not conflict between the parties.

The plaintiffs' attorney argues that the two-waves of subparagraph 3 and subparagraph 6 of the attached Table 1 and subparagraph 2 are owned by plaintiff 1, and although the entrance limit of subparagraphs 4 and 5 are owned by plaintiff 2, it is unfair for the defendant to seize it as a compulsory execution against the non-party 1, and therefore, it is unfair that the defendant's seizure was filed for the claim of this case. Thus, we examine whether the above articles are owned by the plaintiffs.

As shown in this support, the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 6,7,8,9,10,11 and 14 and the testimony of non-party 2 by non-party 12 and 13 of the original trial witness are not believed to be a party member in light of the following evidence, and the facts of the above assertion cannot be acknowledged only by the evidence Nos. 12 and 13, but rather, the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the whole purport of the party's argument is added to the testimony No. 3 and 4 of the original trial witness;

The above entrance and spion are agricultural products cultivated directly by Nonparty 1, who is the father of the plaintiffs, in the land listed in the attached Table that is named as the plaintiffs' own name, and the double-spon five copies are directly raised by the non-party in his own house, and all of the above things can be recognized that they are owned by the non-party (agricultural products on farmland are owned by the actual cultivation).

If so, the claim of this case based on the premise that the above seized objects are owned by the plaintiffs is not reasonable, and it is dismissed.

The decision of the first instance court with the same result is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)