The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant was obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to the rent from the occupancy and use thereof, on the grounds that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) occupied and used the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) without any justifiable title.

Furthermore, the court below rejected all the claims that the plaintiff implicitly accepted the defendant's occupancy use and the defendant's assertion that the defendant is a bona fide possessor under Article 201 of the Civil Act.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.