The duty to return unjust enrichment in a case where the possessor in good faith does not have any legal ground under Article 201 of the Civil Code

This Article recognizes the right to acquire fruits from the possessor in good faith, regardless of the existence of the principal proposal, is the right recognized by the effect of the possessor in good faith. Thus, while the possessor in good faith remains as the possessor in bad faith without changing it into the possessor in bad faith, the possessor in good faith does not have the obligation to return the benefits arising from the acquisition in bad faith even though the receipt of fruits takes place without legal cause and causes damages to others.

Article 201 of the Civil Act

Seoul History Industries Limited Partnership

Gyeongsung Tramway Inc.

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na309 delivered on September 7, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na309 delivered on September 7, 1967

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held as follows. In other words, even though the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, or a bona fide possessor who has the right to receive the negligence under Article 201 of the Civil Act, he is liable to return the profit as a bona fide beneficiary when the receiving of the negligence was caused by another person's property without any legal ground, and thereby causing damage to the other person. In addition, the defendant is liable to return the profit as a bona fide beneficiary when he occupies the land in question, at least a profit equivalent to the rent for the land in question, which is the use of the land in question, and on the other hand he suffered a loss equivalent to the amount of the rent, while the defendant is deemed to have suffered loss to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to return the profit to the plaintiff to the extent that there

However, Article 201 of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 189(1)) recognizes the right to acquire fruits arising from the possession of the object in good faith as a possessor in good faith regardless of the existence or absence of this right. Therefore, while a possessor in good faith has changed to a possessor in bad faith, he/she is not aware of the existence or absence of this right, and remains a possessor in bad faith, he/she shall not be obliged to return the benefits arising from the acquisition of such fruits to another person even though the receipt of the fruits has been done without any legal cause, and thereby, even if he/she incurred any loss to another person. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles in this regard. The lower court determined that the lower court should be reversed from this case’s appeal on the ground that the lower court is justifiable.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)