Relationship between the right to acquire negligence by a bona fide occupant, the right to obtain negligence by tort, and the liability for damages

Even if the Defendant may acquire the ownership of crops cultivated by the Defendant as a bona fide possessor of the land in question, in the event that he/she occupied the land in question on the ground that he/she is not entitled to become an inheritor as the land’s heir, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s possession of the land in question cannot constitute a tort against the real owner, and the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort, and the bona fide possessor is also entitled to acquire the ownership

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 decided May 1, 200

Jeonju District Court Decision 65Na389 delivered on April 30, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's agent are examined.

However, since the judgment of cooking evidence belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, it is not possible to criticize the judgment of cooking evidence of the court below on the premise of independent value judgment as to the circumstances within the evidence.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, even if the defendant can acquire the ownership of the crops cultivated by the non-party 1 as the possessor in good faith in the land of this case, if he considers the non-party 2 who is not entitled to become the inheritor in the land of this case as the land of this case as the inheritor in the non-party 1, and if he knowingly occupies the land of this case with the knowledge of the non-party 2's possession, it cannot be said that there is any negligence for the defendant. Therefore, the possession of the land of this case cannot be deemed to constitute a tort against the real owner. The defendant is liable for damages caused by the tort, the defendant is responsible for the tort, and the right to acquire the fruits by the possessor in

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, according to Germany, it is apparent that the witness stand in the court below's testimony that the witness stand in the state of Madna is 1/300 of the total number of ordinary catch, and that the original judgment adopted the witness stand in the state of Madna and the witness stand in fact-finding, and the witness's testimony contrary to the recognized facts is judged to be difficult to believe. Thus, the lawsuit of Madna is obvious to the purport of rejecting the part of the witness stand in the court below, so it is difficult to employ the arguments.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, 384, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu