In returning unjust enrichment, the scope of benefits that the bona fide beneficiary shall return.

If a landowner gains a profit as a result of a construction project such as filling-up stone reclamation, etc. and the value of the existing construction project, which is the benefit, exceeds the construction cost without any legal cause, only the land owner who is a bona fide beneficiary shall return the construction cost.

Article 748 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Attorneys Kim Hong-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1644 delivered on September 13, 1973

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant-appellant's ground of appeal is examined.

With respect to No. 1:

In light of the records and records of the judgment of the court below's determination of the evidence and the process of fact-finding, it is just and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

On February 20, 1968, where Nonparty 1 purchased the land specified in attached Table 1 from Nonparty 2 in the original judgment among the land in this case, it is identical to the theory of lawsuit that had already been filed for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant, but the court below recognized the purchase of the land in which Nonparty 1 had already been filed for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant, and cannot be said to be unreasonable as it is contrary to the empirical rule.

Although the court below cited the evidence that it is not believed by the court below, it cannot be accepted merely because it criticizes the whole matters of the court below concerning the cooking of evidence, the value judgment thereof, and the fact-finding on the premise that the defendant's alleged facts that the court below did not recognize are legitimate.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the land in this case is the land in which the ground is low along with the land near the site. Therefore, if the land is to be used as the site, the ground is to be enhanced, and the land construction contract with the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were to enter into a contract for the construction in this case with the plaintiffs, and the above construction works were to be carried out from April 20, 1968 to June 20 of the same year. The construction amount is 1,883,825 won if the above construction cost is standard at the time of the above construction, and the value of the above construction work in 1970 won is 2,32,342 won, and it is sufficiently determined that the above construction cost should be returned to the owners of the land in this case by considering the above construction cost's 8th anniversary of the existing construction cost's loss to the extent that it is reasonable to recognize that there is no legal interest in the construction cost's 8th anniversary of the existing construction cost's loss.

Ultimately, all arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)