1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for D 1,960 square meters (82 square meters, 846 square meters, which was divided into E on December 31, 2014; hereinafter “instant land”) and ginseng (including facilities) planted on the ground of the Daejeon District Court C’s Seoul Special Metropolitan City auction procedure.

B. On the other hand, the instant land was originally owned by the Gimnam, Gimnam, and on the grounds of the exchange on April 25, 201, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Geumsan-dong, Agricultural Company on June 1, 2011. The Defendant leased the instant land from friendly F and cultivated ginseng on October 31, 201 on the instant land, along with friendly F and the Defendant cultivated ginseng on the instant land.

C. On August 31, 2014, the Defendant extracted approximately 200 kg of ginseng cultivated as above and loaded them into the Defendant’s cargo vehicle.

The defendant received a summary order of a fine of two million won due to larceny due to the same facts as the above paragraph (c), but requested formal trial. On June 17, 2015, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment of innocence against the defendant on the ground that the above ginseng belongs to the ownership of the defendant and F.

(A) A prosecutor filed an appeal and is currently pending in the appellate court). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the above ginseng was awarded a successful bid in the auction procedure of the above real estate, and the defendant arbitrarily extracted and stolen the above ginseng, and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages amounting to KRW 27 million.

3. As a matter of principle, if the crops are mature and have existed as an independent object, the ownership belongs to the cultivator, and even if they were cultivated without a legitimate title.

Since the ownership of crops is owned by the farmer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da784, Aug. 28, 1979), even if the owner is the defendant.