beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Defendants, on September 11, 2018, purchased 936 square meters and 805 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to E on September 11, 2018 from the Plaintiff’s father G and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by 1/3 equity on October 15, 2018, may be recognized by each entry in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 2 (including each number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply).
Plaintiff’s assertion
The plaintiff had been in the management of fruit trees, such as pine trees, pateral trees, sublim trees, etc., and at two risk trees, etc. with the belief that the consent of the put put the land of this case to the plaintiff, who was the owner of the land of this case before 20 years. The number of fruits stated in the attached Form is owned by the plaintiff.
Judgment
Article 256 of the Civil Act provides, “The owner of an immovable shall acquire the ownership of an article attached to such immovable: Provided, That this shall not apply to the article attached by another person’s title.”
The term "right holder" as referred to in the proviso of the above Article means the right to use another person's real property by attaching his/her movable property, such as superficies, right to lease on a deposit basis, right to lease on a deposit basis, etc. Therefore, if a person without such right has planted trees on another person's land, barring any special circumstance, the owner of the land cannot claim the ownership
(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu9067 Decided July 11, 1989, and 2015Da69907 Decided March 15, 2018, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence to find that the Plaintiff had a right to use his/her movable property on the instant land, and there is no evidence to find that the Plaintiff had a right to use the relevant land. As long as the Defendants purchased the instant land and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, they also acquired the ownership of trees on the ground corresponding to the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
In conclusion, the plaintiff .