In case where a land cultivator puts a compost into a garbage and ships out it with garbage, and the soil is good, whether the cost of the land is a beneficial cost.

If composts and other fertilizers are inserted in the leased and cultivated land of a third party, and the soil which is mixed with garbage is planted, and the land becomes a good soil, and the site is added more than the original land, and the land becomes a perfect fully well-being, the cost which is a ordinary expense for the use of and benefit from the land for the production of crops belongs to a kind of necessary expense to be borne by a land lessee according to customs and is not a beneficial expense to raise the objective price of the land.

Article 626 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1857 delivered on December 20, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 14No335 delivered on December 20, 196, summary of the decision and Article 203(2)306 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff 1 and six others

New Consul Co., Ltd.

Gwangju District Court Decision 64Ga226 delivered on January 1, 200

This appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne jointly by the plaintiff, etc.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 237,160 won, 441,00 won for the plaintiff 2, 315,560 won for the plaintiff 3, 335,650 won for the plaintiff 4, 90,650 won for the plaintiff 5, 249,90 won for the plaintiff 6, and 7, 714,910 won for the plaintiff 7, and 5 percent per annum from the day following the day when the letter of delivery for each of the above amounts was served.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

In the past, the defendant company succeeded to the rights and duties of the company by the follow-up company located in Jongno-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jongno-gu 107-2, and the real estate owned by the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company

The plaintiff et al., made efforts to raise the value of the above land to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 to purchase and sell the above land at the end of 1932, and then the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase and sell the above land at the end of 1942, and the above land occupied by the plaintiff 3 from 1940 to 1940, the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 were to purchase and sell the above land at the end of 1938 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 7 were to purchase and sell the above land at the end of 1937. The non-party 1 and the non-party 7 were to acquire from the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were to own the above land at the end of 1 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were to own the above land at the end of 15.

Therefore, the above costs may not be somewhat different from ordinary costs for using land in accordance with the economic usage of crops again, but they also belong to a kind of necessary cost (this cost shall be borne by the land lessee according to the customary law of the Republic of Korea if there is no special agreement or special agreement). Therefore, even if the value of the above land increases partly as alleged by the plaintiff, if the possessor of the above land acquires negligence as a result of the increase in the value of the above land, the possessor of the above land does not claim for the ordinary necessary cost against the restored person. Thus, in this case, the plaintiff et al. cannot claim the above cost against the defendant in this case where there is no counter-proof that there is no counter-proof.

If the plaintiff et al. claims against the plaintiff et al. in this case on the premise that the cost of claiming that the plaintiff et al. paid is a beneficial cost, and the remaining points should be judged without examining the remaining points, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the result, is just and without merit, and the appeal by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition with the opinion of the

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)