(a) Measures to be taken by the court, if it is recognized as the right to claim the redemption of useful expenses, but there is no proof of the amount of redemption

(b) Time when the possessor claims reimbursement of useful expenses against the person who restored the land; and

A. If a right to claim reimbursement of useful expenses against a possessor is recognized, the court shall deliberate and decide on the amount of redemption by exercising a right to request the possessor, not to reject a claim for reimbursement of useful expenses for this reason, but to urge the possessor to prove the amount of redemption, even though there is no proof of the possessor as to the amount of redemption.

B. Only when the possessor claims the return of the possession from the person to the person to be restored or returned the possession to the person to the person to be restored, the right to claim reimbursement of the beneficial non-performance under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act

(a)Article 203(2)(a) of the Civil Code; Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu716 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 1332) (Gong1986, 1206), 91Da2972 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1698), 76Da1726 delivered on March 23, 1976

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 92Da5881, 92Da5898 delivered on February 9, 1993

Busan District Court Decision 93Na2862, 93Na2879 delivered on May 14, 1993

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the conjunctive claim shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The remaining appeals by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) are dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Plaintiff hereinafter only) attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it as to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sought reimbursement of the amount of 70,635,000 won as the forest of this case, where the plaintiff occupied and managed the forest of this case in this case, and developed a orchard with heavy costs in 255 square meters of the forest of this case, which is a stone plant, and the forest of this case, which was originally formed a 300,000 won per square day by building a roadway, has increased to 300,000 won per square day, and there was no beneficial cost of KRW 70,635,000.

However, according to the records, the witness testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 is the evidence that the plaintiff developed the forest of this case, which is originally a stone plant, and created it as an orchard. If the factual basis is the same, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff spent the expenses for developing the forest of this case as an orchard, and there is sufficient room to deem that the value of the forest of this case increases and is still being existing.

Furthermore, if the Plaintiff’s right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter only the Defendant) is recognized, the court shall deliberate and decide on the amount of redemption by exercising the right to request reimbursement of beneficial costs, not by rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of the amount of redemption, but by urging the Plaintiff to prove the amount of redemption. In light of the records, the court below cannot find out any trace of the above proof as to the date of the seventh day of pleading in which the Plaintiff’s legal representative stated the preparatory claim on April 22, 1993.

Therefore, the court below's determination as above without examining and determining the credibility of the evidence mentioned above and the amount of expenses incurred by the plaintiff and the increase in the present value of forest land as well as the expenses incurred by the plaintiff. Thus, the court below committed an unlawful act which affected the determination of the value of evidence or failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the ground for appeal on

However, only when the possessor claims the return of the possession from the person who was restored or returned the possession to the person who was restored, the possessor shall be deemed to have the right to claim reimbursement of the beneficial cost under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act against the person who was restored (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da726, Jul. 22, 1969; 76Da172, Mar. 23, 1976). In addition, the court below should examine whether the above facts are recognized.

2. Examining the contents of the petition of appeal and the statement of the grounds of appeal in light of the records, the plaintiff does not present the grounds of appeal as to the primary claim and the counterclaim from among the principal claim. Therefore, this part of the appeal cannot be dismissed.

3. Therefore, of the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim shall be reversed and remanded, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal regarding this part shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)