The meaning of "the possessor of the good faith" under section 201(1) of the Civil Code

A bona fide possessor referred to in Article 201(1) of the Civil Act refers to a possessor who knows that he/she has a title, such as ownership, superficies, lease, etc. including a right to acquire fruits.

Article 201(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da1278 delivered on September 28, 1977, 80Da2587 delivered on August 20, 1981

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Kim Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na2580 delivered on February 10, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

The judgment below rejected the defendant's argument that the defendant would not pay the rent for the site for the possession and use of the building of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if not, since the defendant was a bona fide possessor, the defendant did not have a duty to return the rent for the use of the building of this case until the filing of the lawsuit of this case as unjust enrichment. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete deliberation, or incomplete reasoning.

The possessor in good faith under Article 201 (1) of the Civil Code refers to a possessor in good faith who has a title, such as ownership, superficies, and right of lease, which includes a right to acquire fruits, and therefore, in this case, it should be said that the defendant misleads the defendant that he has the right to possess and use the land in good faith.

However, according to the reasoning of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant told Nonparty 1 at the time of the purchase of the building that he would not pay or pay the site usage fee, and confirmed that the content was confirmed to Nonparty 2, who was the chief of the general affairs of the Plaintiff company at the time of the purchase of the building. Accordingly, the former fact was rejected by the lower court, and it was justified that there was no objective reason to believe that the Defendant had the right to acquire negligence only with respect to the latter.

There is no error in the judgment of the court below as to omission of judgment or misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)