Return of unjust enrichment by a person who has occupied another's land in good faith without legal cause.

According to Article 201(1) of the Civil Act, a bona fide possessor shall be deemed to have acquired the fruits of an object in possession. Since the gain accrued from the possession of the land is equivalent to the negligence arising from such possession, even though he/she sustained another’s land without any legal cause, thereby damaging another person, a bona fide possessor does not have the obligation to return the gain accruing from such possession’s cultivation to that person.

Article 201(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2587 Decided August 20, 1981

Kim Jong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na299 delivered on December 15, 1980

The part of the lower judgment regarding return of unjust enrichment is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals against the Defendants’ land delivery portion are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

As a result of on-site verification of the first instance court, the court below recognized that the land of this case (excluding the land list No. 7) is land that can grow be reduced every year from 1968 and be able to grow beer due to reduction of capital and subsequent farming, and held that the Defendants have an obligation to return the above real estate to the plaintiffs who are the owners of the above land as the result of on-site verification. However, according to the above evidence presented by the court below, the above on-site verification can not be determined as land which can be cultivated from 1968 as the result of the above on-site verification, and the above appraisal results merely constitute an appraisal of the above land at the time of appraisal in 1979, which is nothing more than 10 years ago, and it cannot be recognized that the above real estate was in violation of the law of evidence of the court below, and that there was no other way to acknowledge that the above real estate was in violation of the law of evidence No. 1968 of the court below's testimony from the time of Kim Jong-chul's testimony.

With respect to Section 2:

In full view of the evidence at the time, the lower court acknowledged the facts that the land of this case (excluding the land listed in the 7th list) was owned by the Plaintiffs and the facts that the Defendants possessed each of the periods as stated in its reasoning, and presumed that the Defendants, in this case, for which the Defendants did not prove their right to possess each of the above land, have the duty to return the profits earned by occupying each of the above land to the Plaintiffs, and ordered the Defendants to pay the amount of the net profits that the Defendants could have earned from cultivating each of the above land each year.

However, according to Article 201(1) of the Civil Act, a bona fide possessor shall be deemed to have acquired the fruits of an object in good faith. The gains from the cultivation of land correspond to the negligence caused by the possession of the land. Thus, even if the possessor occupied the land without any legal cause and inflicted damage on another person, a bona fide possessor shall not be obligated to return the gains from such possession cultivation to that other person. According to the records, the Defendants are presumed to have occupied each part of the land with the consent of the same person with the knowledge that the owner of the land was the owner of the paper before the non-party. Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants shall be presumed to have been the possessor in good faith and shall be held liable as the possessor in bad faith. Thus, the lower court shall be held liable as the possessor in bad faith. It did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possessor's acquisition of fruits and unjust enrichment, or in the misapprehension of reasoning due to the omission of reasons due to insufficient deliberation. Next, the Defendants' appeal or appeal as to the part of the transferred land is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal on the return of unjust enrichment among the judgment below is justified, and it is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal on the part on the delivery of land is without merit. Therefore, the appeal on the appeal on the part on the dismissal of a final appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)