Scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by a person occupying a miscellaneous property, which is a State property, without permission (i.e., rent calculated in accordance with the method prescribed in Articles 38(1) and 25(1) of the former State Property Act)

Articles 25(1) (see current Article 32(1)), 25-2(1) (see current Article 33(1)), and 38(1) (see current Article 47(1)) of the former State Property Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009); Article 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da76402 Decided July 16, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1576)

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yoon-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Na12803 Decided June 24, 2011

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1

In a case of return of unjust enrichment, the scope of benefits to be returned by a beneficiary is limited to the scope of damages suffered by a loss, and the amount equivalent to the anticipated profit for a loss to be able to be ordinarily enjoyed from the relevant property by social norms. However, given that profit which the State can ordinarily enjoy from miscellaneous property is a loan loan in a case where a loan contract is concluded with regard thereto, the unjust enrichment to be returned by a person occupying miscellaneous property without permission is equivalent to loan charges prescribed by statutes related to State property, barring special circumstances. Furthermore, even according to the language and text of Articles 38(1) and 25-2(1) of the former State Property Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009), adjustment of the reduction of loan charges imposed on a person who has continuously occupied, used, or occupied without permission for more than one year (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da16138, Jun. 1, 201).

The lower court determined that unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant is the amount equivalent to the adjusted loan charges, and accepted only the claim for the amount equivalent to the adjusted loan charges, and the remainder of the claim. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the illegal occupant of State property, and thereby, rejected the claim.

2. Plaintiff’s remaining grounds of appeal and Defendant’s grounds of appeal

As prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, in the same small case as this case, only when the judgment on whether the violation of laws, orders, rules or dispositions and whether the orders, rules or dispositions have been violated is unreasonable, or the judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered. The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal does not constitute any of the above grounds of appeal, and thus does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)