The beneficial cost and necessary cost, if the farmer made a lodging;

In order to enhance his own production, the cost of rhym is not objectively beneficial cost and normally required cost to be borne by farmers by inserting a large number of composts or other fertilizers on the land, and with the soil on the ship, etc.

Article 203(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

New Consul Co., Ltd.

Gwangju High Court Decision 66Na122 delivered on August 17, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The court below determined the facts that the plaintiff et al. and their whole occupants have invested their efforts and expenses in the land at the time of their original cultivation of the above land in its entirety by giving the rent among the non-party or the non-party 1 corporation, who were owners at the time of their original cultivation of the above land, and that the above land was leased and cultivated to produce crops, or to raise a large number of production prices, and the plaintiff et al. were to have produced crops while cultivating the above land, and to have been used for producing agricultural products or raising more production prices, and as a result, the above soil is good. The above soil is no more advanced than natural source, and the above soil is better than that of the plaintiff et al., and the above soil is no more advanced than that of the plaintiff et al., and the above expenses are no more than that of the plaintiff et al., which are ordinarily necessary for the production of the above land, and if the plaintiff et al. were to bear the expenses for the use of and profit from the above land again according to the economic law, and there are no reasonable grounds for the plaintiff's owner to bear the above expenses.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong and Do-dong Do-won Round