An occupant in good faith under Article 201 of the Civil Act refers to an occupant who is believed to have a title (ownership, superficies, right of lease, etc.) that includes a right to acquire negligence.

An occupant in good faith under Article 201 of the Civil Act refers to an occupant who is believed to have a title (ownership, superficies, right of lease, etc.) that includes a right to acquire negligence.

Article 201(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na357 delivered on July 3, 1969

The part of the original judgment against the Plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the appeal brought by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The purport of the facts alleged as the cause of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant occupies part of the land attached to the 2th list of the plaintiff's original judgment from around 1953 without taking any procedure for requisition, and the plaintiff claims restitution of the amount of damages equivalent to rent after September 13, 1956. The court below acknowledged the above facts and rejected the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment before the plaintiff's main lawsuit on the grounds that the defendant's use of the land prior to the filing of the lawsuit constitutes the acquisition of negligence as the possessor in good faith, and thus it cannot be constituted unjust enrichment because the defendant's use of the land prior to the filing of the lawsuit constitutes the acquisition of negligence as the possessor in good faith. However, in this case, the " bona fide possessor" in Article 201 (1) of the Civil Act refers to the possessor in good faith, including the right to acquire negligence (ownership, superficies, right of lease, etc.) and thus, in order to use the land as the possessor in good faith in the 2nd list of the above land, the defendant's title should be reversed.

The first ground for appeal by Defendant ○○○○○ is examined.

The claim for compensation under the Requisition Act, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 24 of the Requisition Act, can be filed with the civil court with the claim for compensation for requisition, and the amount of compensation should be fully compensated with the objective value. (See Supreme Court Decision 67Da1334 delivered on Nov. 2, 1967, and Supreme Court Decision 67Da1334 delivered on Nov. 2, 196) The court below's rejection of the defendant's defense that the claim for compensation for requisition cannot be the object of civil procedure under the same opinion is just and there is no reason to dispute the appeal that the original judgment cannot be the object of civil procedure, and there is no ground to deduct public charges such as the theory of lawsuit in calculating the amount of compensation for the land in question, and the imposition of public charges on the money to be acquired by the plaintiff is without merit.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

Since the court below recognized only the amount equivalent to the rent after November 26, 1967, which was the delivery date of the principal complaint, of the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment on the site No. 2 in the original judgment among the claims filed by the plaintiff, since there is no room for the above claim to be subject to the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 71 (1) of the Budget and Accounts Act, it is obvious that the argument

Therefore, by the appeal of the plaintiff, the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment is reversed and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon