The scope of reimbursement of beneficial expenses under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act and the burden of proof on such reimbursement (i.e., the possessor seeking reimbursement of the cost of benefits) / Where the restored person has expressed his/her intent to the effect that “if the amount of actual expenses and the amount of increase in the existing amount as a result of appraisal are selected by the possessor, the amount of actual expenses and the amount of increase in the existing amount, which are smaller than the amount of increase in the existing amount, as alleged by the possessor, are not calculated through the proof of the possessor, whether it can be interpreted as including “the choice of the existing increase in the amount even in cases where

With respect to the claim for reimbursement of beneficial expenses, Article 203(2) of the Civil Act provides, “The amount disbursed by the possessor to improve the object possessed may be claimed for reimbursement of the amount of expenditure or increased amount in accordance with his/her choice only if there is an increase in the value thereof.” In other words, the scope of reimbursement of beneficial expenses is determined to be chosen by the restored in terms of “the amount disbursed by the possessor as beneficial expenses” and “an increase in the existing amount”. The burden of proof as to the actual amount of expenditure and the increased amount in the existing amount is all the possessor seeking reimbursement of the beneficial expenses.

Therefore, even if an occupant expressed his/her intent to the effect that “the existing increase, which is the smaller of the actual amount of expenditure and the present increase as expressed in the result of the appraisal, is selected” where both the actual amount of expenditure and the present increase are not calculated through the verification of the occupant, it shall not be construed as immediately including that “the existing increase is selected even in cases where the actual amount of expenditure is less than the existing increase,” barring any special circumstance. Generally, the intention of the reinstated is to choose the smaller of the actual amount of expenditure and the existing increase.

Article 203(2) of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da437 delivered on October 18, 1962 (No. 10-4, 93)

Crossingland Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Shin & Yang LLC, Attorneys Won Sung-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Crossing-gun (Law Firm Daak, Attorney Jeon Hong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na1920 decided December 20, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the claim for reimbursement of beneficial expenses, Article 203(2) of the Civil Act provides, “The amount disbursed by the possessor to improve the object in possession and other beneficial expenses may be claimed in accordance with his choice only if there is an increase in its value.” In other words, the scope of reimbursement of beneficial expenses is determined to be chosen by the restored in terms of “amount disbursed by the possessor as beneficial expenses” and “an increase in the present value.” The burden of proof as to the actual amount of expenditure and the present increase in the present value is all the possessor seeking reimbursement of beneficial expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Da437, Oct. 18, 1962).

Therefore, even if an occupant expressed his/her intent to the effect that “the existing increase, which is the smaller of the actual amount of expenditure and the present increase as expressed in the result of the appraisal, is selected” where both the actual amount of expenditure and the present increase are not calculated through the verification of the occupant, it shall not be construed as immediately including that “the existing increase is selected even in cases where the actual amount of expenditure is less than the existing increase,” barring any special circumstance. Generally, the intention of the reinstated is to choose the smaller of the actual amount of expenditure and the existing increase.

2. The lower court: (a) recognized the increase in the value of the land of this case caused by the Plaintiff’s beneficial cost of KRW 895,470,034, and the Plaintiff’s beneficial cost of KRW 3,651,631,90, respectively; and (b) determined that for the following reasons, the Defendant ought to be deemed to have selected a smaller amount between the actual amount of expenditure and the increased amount; (c) the Defendant, who is the recovered, through the preparatory document dated December 12, 2016, expressed his/her intent to choose a right to choose a small amount, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is admitted; (b) the Defendant expressed his/her intent to choose a specific amount of money as KRW 3,651,631,90 as a result of the Nonparty’s appraisal of the Plaintiff’s beneficial cost of April 26, 2017; and (d) thereafter, it would be reasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s amount of expenditure in the land of this case as KRW 4,939,289,36464,00.

3. Examining the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal No. 1, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles.

Meanwhile, the ground of appeal No. 2 pertains to the lower court’s assumptive and additional judgment. As long as the lower court’s judgment was justifiable, the propriety of this part of the judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted without need to further examine.

In addition, the third ground for appeal is merely an error of the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is 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 Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)