1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the following changes from 4th to 5th 7th of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

[Supplementary part] Even if the cost of the above repair work as alleged by the Defendant constitutes a beneficial cost, it is established when the possessor’s right to claim reimbursement of beneficial cost against the possessor under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act is established when the possessor is not entitled to lawfully possess the property, such as a contractual relationship, and is obligated to comply with the owner’s claim for restitution of the property. In a case where the possessor has legitimate title of possession, such as a contractual relationship, etc. at the time of disbursement of the beneficial cost, the law or legal principles governing the contractual relationship apply to the redemption of the cost of the repair work or the value increase in value (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da34828, Mar. 26, 2009). However, if the purport of the entire argument and evidence as seen earlier is added, the Defendant appears to have executed the repair work, etc. at the instant facility as the buyer of the instant facility. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot exercise the Plaintiff’s right

Furthermore, even if the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of beneficial costs is assumed to be partially possible, the Defendant may seek reimbursement of the amount of expenditure or the increased amount in accordance with the Plaintiff’s choice only when the increase in the value of the instant facility exists due to the relevant repair work.

However, as the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention that he/she does not consent to the Defendant’s expenditure cost through the entry in the preparatory document dated December 9, 2015, the Defendant should prove the objective value increase value of the instant facility.

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is the facility of this case due to the defendant's repair work.