The right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs under Article 203(2) of the Civil Code can be claimed only when the possessor returns the article in possession.

The right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs in Section 2 of this article can only be claimed when the possessor returns the article in possession.

Article 203(2) of the Civil Act

A local child care center, a foundation;

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1723 delivered on April 11, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

Article 203 of the Civil Act provides for the scope of and timing for the repayment of necessary or beneficial expenses incurred by the possessor at the time of the return of the object in cases where there is no legal relationship between the possessor and the person claiming the return of the object (the possessor). It is interpreted to the effect that the possessor’s right to demand reimbursement of the beneficial expenses (Paragraph 2) is entitled to demand reimbursement of the amount of expenditure or increase only in cases where the value exists at the time of recovery of possession by the person to recover, but also the possessor is entitled to demand reimbursement of the amount of expenditure or increase, only in cases where the value exists at the time of recovery of possession by the person to recover. As such, the possessor’s right to demand reimbursement of the beneficial expenses under Article 203(2) of the Civil Act can only be claimed when the possessor returns the object to the possessor. Accordingly, the court below’s opinion is just to reject the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of the beneficial expenses, and the possessor can claim the right to demand reimbursement of the beneficial expenses, and it does not interfere with the above interpretation.

The ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

The plaintiff's future registration of the transfer of real estate ownership was cancelled due to the invalidation of cause, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the possession of real estate in possession cannot be restored to the defendant who is the owner. Therefore, the appeal is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri