The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the victim are sectional co-owners of the land located in Gwangju City, and after purchasing part of the above land from the former owner E, they purchased the remainder of the land excluding the part purchased by the Defendant by the victim (hereinafter “instant land”).

However, the trees indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant trees”) were planted on the instant land owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant, at the time of the purchase of the instant land from E, included not only all the above trees, etc. on the ground at the time of the purchase of the instant land, but also on the instant land, concluded the transfer registration with the knowledge that there was no limitation of rights on the said land.

Therefore, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land, thereby acquiring the ownership of the instant tree, and thus, the victim is not the owner of the said tree.

2. The owner of the judgment real estate acquires the ownership of the article attached to the real estate, but it is not attached by the title of another person (Article 256 of the Civil Act). Thus, the trees planted on the land by the right to use the land is owned by the planting person and does not conform to the land.

Therefore, even if the land was purchased by auction after planting trees, the buyer does not acquire the ownership of trees on the ground.

(See Supreme Court Order 89Meu21095 Decided January 23, 1990, and Supreme Court Decision 97Do3425 Decided April 24, 1998, etc.). Furthermore, trees attached to land cannot be subject to bona fide acquisition under Article 249 of the Civil Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da227881, Feb. 12, 2015). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.