All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s ground of appeal No. 1, the possessor in good faith acquired the fruits of possession (Article 201(1) of the Civil Act), and the possessor in bad faith should return the fruits received.

(2) Article 201(2) of the Civil Act provides that the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied in good faith (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act); however, the presumption of good faith as to the possession has not been broken up until now (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da63350, Mar. 10, 200). Even if a possessor in good faith has lost his/her principal right in a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, he/she shall be deemed to have been a bad faith possessor from the time the lawsuit was brought up (Article 197(2) of the Civil Act). The lower court determined to the effect that, prior to December 13, 2010, a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the title in the name of E concerning the share in the instant land filed by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff, a bona fide possessor with the right to receive the fruits, but the Defendant is not obliged to refund the rent equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the land, in light of its stated reasoning.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the time when the obligation to return unjust enrichment occurred or the interpretation of a bona fide occupant, or by misapprehending the facts beyond the bounds of the principle

2. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.