Whether a possessor may seek reimbursement of the expenditure under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act against the other party at the time of the recovery of possession other than the other party, such as a contractual relationship, where the possessor has a legitimate possessory right, such as a contractual relationship, at the time of

Under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act, a possessor’s right to claim reimbursement of beneficial expenses is established when the possessor does not have the right to lawfully possess the property, such as a contractual relationship, and is obligated to comply with the owner’s claim for reimbursement of expenses. In such cases, the possessor may exercise his/her right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the owner at the time of recovery of possession, i.e., the possessor at the time of recovery of possession regardless of who was the owner at the time of disbursement of expenses. However, in cases where the possessor has legitimate title of possession, such as a contractual relationship, etc. at the time of disbursement of expenses for beneficial expenses, the provisions governing the contractual relationship or legal principles apply to the repayment of such expenses. As such, the possessor can exercise his/her right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the other party to the contractual relationship, etc., and cannot seek reimbursement of expenses under

Article 203(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm International, Attorneys Lee Won-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2000Na13740 delivered on September 5, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

A. The lower court: (a) purchased the instant building (the 1995.44m2 underground floor of the 3rd floor and the 4rd floor) from the 19th floor to the 19th floor, and concluded the instant lease contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) on March 15, 1997 with a view to operating the 99m2nd floor; and (b) concluded the instant lease contract with the Plaintiff on March 15, 1997 with the 9m2nd unit to the 9m2nd unit of the instant building; (c) purchased the instant lease contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (the 9m2nd unit of the instant building to the 9m2nd unit of the instant building to the 90m2nd unit of the instant building; and (d) purchased the instant lease contract with the Plaintiff’s 9m2nd unit of the 9m2nd unit of the instant building to the 900 billionth unit of the instant lease insurance contract.

B. Furthermore, the court below asserted that, after the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the non-party company for the building of this case, 100,90,179 won was spent for the interior works of the building of this case, such as 100,08,017 won, among which the increase in existing value was 70,08,008,017 won, and the costs incurred for the interior works of the building of this case, which were newly constructed for a bowling place business purpose, constitute the costs incurred for improving the building of this case and promoting its utility actively, the plaintiff's claim against the non-performance of the claim of this case against the defendant for reimbursement of its beneficial costs pursuant to Article 203 of the Civil Code, since (1) since the plaintiff's above input costs of the building of this case were not established to see the building of this case as a bowling place, it is difficult to view that the costs incurred for the construction of the building of this case, fin, outer walls, and new site were more useful costs for the plaintiff's sale of the building of this case.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. On the third ground for appeal

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, it is not possible to increase the objective value of the building as it conforms to the building of this case, such as advertising pin, outer wall signboards, and new launchings, which are installed by the plaintiff for the operation of a bowling site in the building of this case. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it is not erroneous as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the possessor's claim for reimbursement of beneficial costs against the possessor is claiming reimbursement of expenses incurred by the possessor in order to improve the possessor's possession, and the defendant's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground that the possessor uses the above facilities owned by the plaintiff without paying any consideration to the plaintiff, and its legal requirements and effects are different. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment cannot be viewed as including the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment. Thus, the court below's decision did not err in the misapprehension of judgment on the ground that the court below judged only the claim for reimbursement of beneficial costs arising from the installation of the above facilities and did not determine the above point. The court below decided differently from the first instance court on the installation costs of the above facilities, and cannot be viewed as having the duty to exercise the right

B. As to the first and second points

Under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act, the possessor’s right to claim reimbursement of beneficial expenses is established when the possessor does not have the right to lawfully possess the property, such as a contractual relationship, and is obligated to comply with the owner’s claim for reimbursement of expenses. In such cases, the possessor may exercise his/her right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the owner at the time of recovery of possession regardless of who was the owner at the time of disbursement of the expenses. However, in cases where the possessor has legitimate title of possession, such as a contractual relationship, etc. at the time of disbursement of the expenses for beneficial expenses, the provisions governing the contractual relationship or legal principles apply to the repayment of the expenses for the said expenses. Thus, the possessor can exercise his/her right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the other party to the contractual relationship, etc., and it cannot be claimed against the owner at the time of recovery of possession other than the other party

In this case, the Plaintiff, a lessee, has paid expenses by lawfully occupying the building of this case under a lease agreement. Thus, the Plaintiff, a lessor, can only claim reimbursement of the beneficial cost under the lease agreement pursuant to Article 626(2) of the Civil Act against the non-party company, which is the lessor, and it is not possible to separately claim reimbursement of the beneficial cost pursuant to Article 203(2) of the Civil Act against the Defendant who acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid (Provided, That this legal principle does not relate to the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of the object against the lessor, regardless of the fact that the Plaintiff could have set up a lien against the lessor based on the right to claim reimbursement of the beneficial cost against the lessor).

The court below held that the facilities of this case, other than advertising pin, outer wall signboards, and new launching costs, are consistent with the building of this case and subject to a claim for reimbursement of beneficial expenses. The court below held that the facilities are not in the position of claiming reimbursement of beneficial expenses, as long as the price of the successful bid was included in the appraisal price and the successful bid price was finally determined based on the appraisal price in the auction procedure based on the right to collateral security of this case, and the successful bid price was the result of the repayment of the plaintiff's obligation ultimately, is not the status of claiming reimbursement of beneficial expenses. In conclusion, there is incorrect points in its reasoning, but there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possessor's right to claim reimbursement of beneficial expenses under Article 203 (2) of the Civil Act, which affected the conclusion

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)