beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 11,836,00 won equivalent to the market price of the instant pine trees and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from August 8, 2013 to the date of complete payment, for the purpose of extracting the instant pine trees, the Defendant, which is the Plaintiff’s possession, by damaging the roots of the instant pine trees, such as cutting down roots in order to extract the instant pine trees, and selling them in depth at 2m.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Regarding the assertion that the instant pine tree is not owned by the Plaintiff, 1) the Defendant’s assertion was planted in the past forest owned by E, but E transferred it before about 30 years from the time of the said extraction, and the Defendant purchased the instant pine tree from E, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant pine tree. 2) The instant pine tree can acquire its ownership through the execution of the name method or the registration of standing timber (see Articles 186 and 188 of the Civil Act, Supreme Court Decisions 69Da1346, Nov. 25, 1969; 69Da1346, Nov. 25, 1969). In a case where the instant pine tree was not owned by the Plaintiff, the legal principles of conformity with Article 256 of the Civil Act are applied to the tree ownership based on lawful title, such as the right to loan the use of land, and the ownership of the relevant tree on such land does not coincide with the owner of the relevant land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98.