1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: “The total sum of compensation for trees of this case shall be according to the second judgment of the court of first instance” and “the third above the third above of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted, and the reasons for appeal emphasizing the plaintiff at the court of first instance shall be as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Defendant’s appeal was planting the instant trees on the instant land without any title. As such, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the ownership of the instant trees.

Even as the plaintiff's assertion, J, the father of the plaintiff, planted the trees of this case with G's consent from G I.

Even if consent was obtained from G and H, the owner of the instant land, and obtained from I, it is difficult to deem that there was a title to planting the instant trees.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant, a third party, because the Plaintiff did not register the instant trees in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Names and Standing Timbers.

Therefore, the claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the trees of this case is without merit.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the written evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 8-10, and 7 of the evidence No. 7, G acquired the ownership of the instant land on April 4, 1972, and H, who is a G, was donated the ownership of KRW 4,426 square meters among the instant land on May 16, 207, by G.

B. G and H did not directly manage the instant land, but delegated G’s management to G-type I.

J, the father of the Plaintiff, obtained consent from I for the use of the land in this case.