Whether or not a person who occupies and uses another person's land in good faith has returned unjust enrichment

According to Article 201(1) of the Civil Act, a bona fide possessor shall be deemed to have acquired the fruits of an object of possession. On the other hand, gains from the use of land shall concurrently be the same as the fruits from such land. Thus, even if a bona fide possessor occupies or uses another’s land without any legal cause and causes damages to such person, he/she does not have the obligation to return the gains from such possession or use to

Articles 201(1) and 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da2167 Decided May 23, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 81Da233 Decided September 22, 1981

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Shin Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 85Na299,300 delivered on July 25, 1986

The part concerning the return of unjust enrichment among the part against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the counterclaim of the lower judgment shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The remaining appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

The court below rejected the evidence that the non-party 1 was authorized to act on behalf of the defendant (the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, while managing the land of this case owned by the defendant, and recognized the fact that the non-party 1 arbitrarily sold the part of this case to the plaintiff (the counter-party 1, the plaintiff hereinafter, the plaintiff 2) and the non-party 2 as if he were his own possession by taking advantage of his status while he managed the land of this case. In light of the records, the court below's finding that the above sale was not effective on the part of the defendant, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, such

After all, we cannot accept the argument because it is merely for the misunderstanding of evidence preparation and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive authority of the court below.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

If an expression agent intends to be established, the act of an unauthorized representative must be done, so if the representation itself is not recognized as in this case, there is no room to apply the legal principles of the expression agent.

The court below erred in finding that it was impossible to recognize the basic power of representation, which serves as the premise of the expression agency, in confirming that Nonparty 1 had sold and purchased the Defendant’s land while managing the Defendant’s land. However, as seen above, it is legitimate in concluding an unlawful conclusion of the establishment of the expression agency as seen in the above, and such error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. We cannot accept the discussion.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim that the defendant implicitly ratified the sale and purchase of the land against the plaintiff, etc. by the non-party 1, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, lack of reasons, and misapprehension of the legal principles.

We cannot accept this issue.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal:

The lower court recognized the fact that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land owned by the Defendant during the period indicated in its holding, and determined that the Plaintiff was obligated to return the amount equivalent to the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent as indicated in its holding from January 1, 1975 to the date of delivery of the said land, after the Plaintiff

However, according to Article 201(1) of the Civil Act, a bona fide possessor shall be deemed to have acquired the fruits of an object of possession. On the other hand, the gains from the use of the land will concurrently be the same as the fruits of the land. Thus, even though a bona fide possessor occupies or uses another's land without any legal ground and causes damages to it, he does not have the obligation to return the gains from such possession or use to that person.

According to the records, the plaintiff has been believed as a lawful purchaser of the land of this case and has occupied and used it. Accordingly, the court below should have judged whether the plaintiff is a bona fide possessor or a malicious possessor, or whether he was a malicious possessor from time to time, and should have held the responsibility as a possessor. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the acquisition of the possessor's negligence and unjust enrichment, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberation. This constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the court below is justified.

5. Therefore, among the part against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim of the judgment below, this part of the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division, which is the court below, to reverse and re-examine the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment among the part against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim of the judgment below. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the dismissed appeal

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)