2. Where several persons jointly use another person's property without any legal ground, the nature of such obligation to return unjust enrichment;

2. Where several persons jointly use another person's property without any legal ground, the obligation to return unjust enrichment shall be an indivisible obligation for redemption of indivisible profits, barring any special circumstances, and each of the indivisible obligation shall be discharged from the other's obligation with the discharge of the entire obligation of one person.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Based on its reasoning, the court below determined that the 4th 6th fbebbeb, etc. of the site of this case was part of the 12th Dosan Si ( Address omitted) where the plaintiff acquired the registration of ownership transfer and completed the registration of ownership transfer. The defendants confirmed that they jointly occupied the site of this case without any legal grounds from this to August 31, 1979. Since it is not recognized that there was any fact to believe that the defendants had the right to possess the site of this case, the defendants' possession cannot be deemed as a bona fide possession, the defendants rejected the defendants' defense that they had the right to acquire negligence until the date of filing the principal lawsuit.

Article 201 (1) of the Civil Act provides that "a bona fide possessor in good faith who is recognized as the right to acquire the land of this case" refers to a possessor who has a title (ownership, superficies, right of lease, etc.) including the right to acquire the land of this case. However, it is necessary to make such an error. (See Supreme Court Decision 69Da1234 delivered on September 30, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 79Da547 delivered on November 27, 1979, etc.). The judgment of the court below is justified in the decision of the court below that the defendants cannot be deemed as a possessor in good faith who has the right to acquire the land of this case since there is no ground to believe that the defendants has the right to use the land of this case as a possessor in good faith, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the acquisition of the negligence by the possessor in good faith, and the judgment of the court below cited as the above precedents are supported by the judgment of the court below.

The issue is groundless.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined.

In calculating the amount equivalent to the rent corresponding to the unjust enrichment as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is recognized as appropriate after examining the process of evidence in light of the records, and the obligation to return unjust enrichment where several persons jointly use another person's property without any legal cause is an indivisible obligation with repayment of indivisible benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da630, Aug. 22, 1978). Indivisibility obligation is identical with a joint obligation in the sense that each obligor is liable to perform the entire obligation and the other obligor is exempted from the obligation due to one obligor's performance. Accordingly, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendants are jointly occupied the land in this case without any legal cause and reported the profit equivalent to the rent. Thus, the defendants are liable to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff who is the owner. Therefore, the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just and without merit.

Therefore, the defendants' appeals are 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)