The case holding that it cannot be viewed as a thing belonging to the dry field (real estate).

The articles in accordance with the Civil Act are attached to real estate, which leads to the real estate itself, and the separation and recovery of which is disadvantageous to the social and economic aspects, and it does not necessarily require that it is difficult to separate and restore it. Accordingly, the posium trees planted and harvested on the land should be regarded as a separate movable, and it cannot be viewed as a thing attached to the land.

Article 256 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (74 Gohap615, 616)

The portion of the original judgment against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the amount of 23,549 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5 percent per annum from June 16, 1974 to the full payment.

The remainder of the counterclaim by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is dismissed.

The litigation cost shall be divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and the first and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the other costs by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is seeking to pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the amount of KRW 854,400 and the amount calculated by applying the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 16, 1974 to the full payment date. The costs of lawsuit are to be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and a sentence of provisional execution.

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be revoked.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff at the first and second instances.

In full view of the whole purport of the party’s pleading in the testimony of Nonparty 1, 2-1, and the above witness, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 of the trial witness at the court below (Provided, That the part not trusted below among the testimony is excluded), the plaintiff (the counter defendant; hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) acquired ownership of 348 square meters before May 9, 1973, and requested the defendant (the counter-party plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the defendant) (the counter-party plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the defendant), who was planted on the ground without title, to collect 267 Doz trees owned by the defendant (the counter-party plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and the above witness at the court below, and the non-party 2 did not perform the collection of Doz trees on August 16, 1973, and the non-party 3 witness at the court below's 5 Doz. and the non-party 4 Doz. testimony at the court below's 5 Doz.

However, from July 15, 1973 to the end of the following month, the Defendant: (a) from the time of July 15, 1973 to the time of the Plaintiff, she went to the 20 kg. 5,340 kg. without the Defendant’s permission, Doz. (20 kg. 5,340 kg.) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s losses suffered by the Defendant are KRW 587,400 per kg. (b) but the Plaintiff’s attempt is based on the same quantity as the Defendant’s head, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact, except for the evidence rejected above. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant claims that the plaintiff be reimbursed for the plaintiff since the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the collection of the above Dok tree and the delivery of the above 348 Dok tree, which is the land where the above Dok tree were planted, are delivered to the plaintiff who is the owner of the above Dok tree, and the plaintiff acquires the above Dok tree on its ground. Thus, the defendant's claim on the premise that the plaintiff is claiming for the delivery of the above Dok tree, which is equivalent to the market price, shall be obtained unfairly, and the defendant shall be damaged by the amount equivalent to the above Dokdong tree, and thus the plaintiff is claiming reimbursement against the plaintiff. However, since it is obvious in the record that the judgment of the court below citing the above Dok tree's claim against the defendant in

Then, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of 348 square meters of the above land by the successful bid, and 267 Dok tree, which had been planted on the above land, is reverted to the plaintiff's ownership, which is the owner of the above land under Article 256 of the Civil Act. Thus, the defendant's claim for counterclaim based on the premise that the above Dok tree is owned by the defendant is without any reason. However, an article consistent with the Civil Act argues that the above Dok tree is owned by the defendant, which is attached to the real estate and viewed itself as a social and economic real estate, is disadvantageous to the social economy, and it does not necessarily require that it is difficult to separate and recover. Thus, the above Dok tree, which can be planted and harvested on the above land, shall be considered as an independent movable property, and it shall not be deemed as an article belonging to the above land. Thus, even if the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the above land by the successful bid, the above Dok tree can not belong to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Procedure Act from June 16, 1974 to the date of full payment, which is obviously the following day for the defendant to deliver the above recognition damages for damages for delay. Thus, the defendant's counterclaim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is unfair and dismissed. Since the original judgment is partially different from this conclusion, it shall be modified, and the burden of litigation costs shall be borne by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)