The ownership of the forest trees planted without any authority over another person's forest land shall revert to the owner of the forest land.

The ownership of the forest trees planted without any authority over another person's forest land shall revert to the owner of the forest land.

Article 256 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others, who are the deceased Nonparty 1 litigant

Republic of Korea and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 66Na601 delivered on September 12, 1968

The plaintiffs' respective appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

Since Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Property Act provides that when selling state property, a sales contract for state property shall be prepared in case of selling state property, on the grounds of the original judgment, it shall be deemed that the contract is concluded when preparing a sales contract for a case under a negotiated contract in which the method of purchasing state property is ordinarily in accordance with the procedure for a public sale for a case under a negotiated contract. However, as alleged by the plaintiffs' representative, if the purchase was made in a lump sum without preparing a sales contract, it shall not be deemed that the above contract was concluded at the time when the payment was made in the country. In addition, the original judgment cannot be deemed to have been established by the plaintiff's construction certificate that the fact that the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 purchased the forest land in question from the defendant Eul, such as the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment, there

The second ground of appeal No. 2

The ownership of the forest trees planted without authority on another person's forest land in the original judgment shall belong to the forest owner in accordance with Article 256 of the Civil Act. Even in cases where the farmland of another person is cultivated without legitimate authority, the ownership of the produced farmland shall belong to the forest owner in accordance with the judgment of the original source that belongs to the farmer. In the case of the farmland cultivation, the precedents of the original source that the ownership of the produced farmland belongs to the farmer need to be taken up only from the seed to the harvest, and management by the cultivator is necessary. In the case of the forest land, as the ownership of the said farmland is relatively apparent, the ownership of the said farmland requires a long period of the growth of the forest trees and its possession is not obvious, and it is not appropriate for another person to grow the forest land without authority. Therefore, the legal principles on the ownership

The third ground of appeal is examined as follows:

The original judgment adopted Gap evidence No. 13-1 (the ledger of collection in lieu of the sale of state property) cited in the debate paper, and it is clear that Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Uniforms and Decisions) do not constitute evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and even after comparing the original judgment with the records, it cannot be found that there was any error of violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu