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 useful expenses, Article 203(2) of the Civil Act provides, “The possessor may demand reimbursement of the amount of expenditure or increase in the amount of expenditure in accordance with his option only if there is an increase in the value as to the amount disbursed to improve the object possessed.”

In other words, the scope of repayment of beneficial expenses is determined to be chosen by the restoredr from among the “amount disbursed by the possessor as beneficial expenses” and “an increase in the existing amount.”

The burden of proof on the actual amount of expenditure and the amount of increase in the existing amount is all the possessor seeking reimbursement of the beneficial cost.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of evidence by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In general, it is because the intention of the recovery is to select the smaller amount between the actual amount of expenditure and the increase in the existing amount.

2. The lower court: (a) recognized the increase in the value of the land of this case caused by the Plaintiff’s beneficial expense of KRW 895,470,034, and the Plaintiff’s beneficial expense of KRW 3,651,631,90, respectively; and (b) determined that the Defendant should be deemed to have selected the smaller of the actual amount of expenditure and the present increased amount on the following grounds:

① In other words, the Defendant, who is the restored, cannot recognize the beneficial cost claimed by the Plaintiff through the preparatory brief dated December 12, 2016, and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized.