Acquisition of fruits and Return of Unjust Enrichment by a bona fide Possessor

Since a bona fide possessor may acquire the fruits derived from the possession of the object, even though a bona fide possessor causes damage to another person due to the acquisition of negligence, he/she does not have the obligation to return the gains arising from the acquisition of such fruits to that person.

Articles 201 and 197 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2272 Decided November 28, 1967, Decision 76Da661 Decided July 27, 1967

[Judgment of the court below]

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 77Na191 delivered on October 5, 1977

1. The part against the defendant ordering the payment of money among the original judgment shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

2. The appeal against the remaining parts of the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

1. As to the first part of the claim for the delivery of land and removal of buildings:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts that the defendant has occupied the above 1 drawings (c), (d), (f), (f), (f) (f) and (f) parts of the attached Form No. 1 drawings, (c), (f), (f) and (c) Section 2 (c), such as Section 47 Hobbeon and Section 8 of the same Article, which are attached to the original judgment from among the buildings in this case as shown in the attached Form attached Table attached to the judgment of the court below by timely evidence, and that the plaintiff has a duty to remove the parts of the defendant's building constructed on the above site and deliver them to the above part of the site, which are owned by the plaintiff on May 29, 1970, and the defendant owned the above building on the 23th Mabbebbeon and 6th Mabbeon, and there is no error in the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the above facts.

In addition, the building owned by the defendant was originally constructed on the ground of 30 square meters around September 195 by the non-party on the land owned by the non-party ( Address 2 omitted) in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 2 omitted) and later sold on June 18, 1973, and the defendant acquired ownership on June 18, 1973, after the construction of the building, and on May 7, 1966, after the construction of the building, 30 square meters in the above site were reduced to 22:4:4:8: 8: the land improvement project in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 3 omitted). Therefore, even if it is recognized that the 5 square meters in the site indicated in the original judgment, which constitutes the site of the building, was included in the above ( Address 1 omitted), the part of the building site indicated in the original judgment, after the land substitution becomes final, cannot be said to have been ordered by the defendant to purchase or claim rent from the plaintiff, and it cannot be accepted as a ground for this.

In addition, the decision of the court below that rejected the defendant's claim for the prescriptive acquisition is incomplete, but if the records are recorded, it is not possible to find out the trace of the defendant's claim for the prescriptive acquisition at the court below, and there is no decision of the court below as to this, and it is also groundless.

2. As to a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant acquired ownership of the building of this case from June 18, 1973 to 5 of the above part of the building site owned by the plaintiff without title and caused damage to the plaintiff, and that the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff. Since the defendant occupies five square meters of the above part of the building site in good faith, there is no evidence as to the defendant's assertion that the time for returning the above part of the building site should be calculated from the time when the lawsuit of this case was brought into action, and even if the defendant is a bona fide possessor from the time when he acquired ownership of the above building, the above part of the building site shall be deemed to have accrued from that time even if he is a bona fide possessor from the time when he acquired ownership of the above building, the above part of the building site shall be deemed to have been a bona fide possessor, and therefore, the defendant's above part of the building site shall be excluded from the judgment of the court below 70th, 197 of the Civil Act. However, according to Article 197 of the Civil Act, it shall be presumed that the defendant's possessor is not guilty.

If so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of good faith of the possessor and the legal principles on the acquisition of negligence by the possessor in good faith, and the illegality affected the judgment on the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the part on the argument that points out this point is with merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal on the part against the defendant regarding the removal of buildings and delivery of land among the original judgment is without merit, and the appeal on the part against the defendant's failure in relation to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is without merit, and this part of the appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)