Ownership of the trees planted on the ground with the consent of the land lessee only without title;

The term “right holder” under the proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act means the right to use a movable property owned by another person, such as superficies, chonsegwon, right of lease, etc., and thus, if a person without such title has planted a tree on the said real property with the consent of the lessee only without obtaining such consent from the landowner, barring any special circumstance, he/she may not claim the ownership of the tree against the landowner, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.

Article 256 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 87Na843 delivered on February 10, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

Article 256 of the Civil Act provides that the owner of a real estate shall acquire the ownership of an article attached to the real estate: Provided, That the same shall not apply to an article attached by the title of another person. The term "right holder" referred to in the proviso of the above provision refers to the right to use the movable property by attaching it to another person's real estate, such as superficies, lease on a deposit basis, lease on a deposit basis, lease on a deposit basis, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the Defendant, who acquired the above real estate and cut the above trees, is liable for tort on the ground that the trees constitute separate ownership from the ownership of the above land without a deliberation and determination as to the special circumstances that the trees were separated from the above land and owned by the Plaintiff, without the consent of the Nonparty who leased the above land without the consent from the former owner of the above land, was liable for the damages incurred thereby, by misapprehending the legal principles as to the conformity of the real estate under Article 256 of the Civil Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

In addition, even according to the evidence found by the court below, it is not proven that the defendant knew or could have known that he was another person's ownership when he purchased the land of this case from the former owner or when he cuts the above trees.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)