The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the instant trees correspond to the instant golf course site and constitute a real estate, and that the instant golf course site is prohibited from compulsory execution as a trust property, and therefore, the instant trees as planted in the instant site are also prohibited from compulsory execution, and that the instant trees cannot be subject to the real estate execution procedure, along with the instant site, cannot be subject to the real estate execution procedure, and thus, the auction procedure as to the instant trees cannot be subject to the movable property execution procedure.

Furthermore, as to the Defendant’s assertion that “the instant trees were planted by the Plaintiff’s title, and thus, it cannot be deemed that they were consistent with the instant golf course site pursuant to the proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act, and therefore, at the time of the instant auction procedure, the ownership was still owned by the Plaintiff,” the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the title of planting the trees, which are the objects of independent trade, could not be recognized

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act and civil execution procedure.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s bona fide acquisition assertion premised on the premise that the instant trees are separate properties from the instant golf course site, by holding that the instant trees still correspond to the site of the instant golf course, and thus, do not constitute bona fide acquisition, on the ground that the measures for the execution of seizure of corporeal movables cannot be deemed to have been taken.

The relevant legal principles and principles.