[대지인도등][공2000.5.1.(105),943]
[1] The meaning of "the possessor of a bona fide ship recognized as the right to receive negligence" under Article 201 (1) of the Civil Code
[2] Whether the presumption of good faith is reversed in a case where it is proved that the possessor's possession has no title (negative)
[1] Article 201 (1) of the Civil Code provides that "the possessor of the good in good faith shall acquire the fruits of the article in possession." Here, the possessor in good faith refers to the possessor in good faith who has the right to receive the fruits, which includes the right to receive the fruits. However, there must be reasonable grounds for misunderstanding of such errors.
[2] The presumption of good faith as to the possession during the period is presumed to have been possessed in good faith pursuant to Article 197 of the Civil Code, and the possession without title was revealed.
[1] Article 201 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 197 (1) and 201 (1) of the Civil Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Da22114 decided Dec. 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 1992) Supreme Court Decision 94Da27069 decided Aug. 25, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3256), 95Da32969 decided Dec. 10, 198 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 82Da708, 709, 82Da1792, 1793 (Gong1983, 1984, 1949, 1949, 1949, 1949, 203Da294969 decided Jul. 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 198, 194).
Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Lee Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu District Court Decision 98Na15345 delivered on September 29, 1999
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 201(1) of the Civil Act provides that "the possessor of the good faith shall acquire the fruits of the possessor of the article in good faith." Here, the possessor in good faith refers to the possessor in good faith who has the right to receive the fruits and has the right to receive the fruits, and there is a reasonable ground for misunderstanding the right to receive the fruits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da27069, Aug. 25, 1995; 95Da32969, Dec. 10, 1996). Further, the possessor in good faith is presumed to have possessed in good faith and was found to have been possessed without the right, and thus the presumption of good faith for the possession in good faith during that period is not broken.
In light of the above legal principles and the circumstances leading up to the defendant's possession of the part of the land in the dispute in this case and the construction of the above ground buildings, we affirm the decision of the court below as a bona fide possessor, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of bona fide possession or in the incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal
In addition, the part of the Defendant’s written brief on August 18, 199, which the Plaintiff pointed out, is not a confession of the Plaintiff’s time of request for delivery of the land, but merely a assumptive statement that accepts the Plaintiff’s assertion. Thus, the lower court’s judgment on the same purport cannot be deemed as erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of a party’s intent or the scope of
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)