1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff claimed a principal lawsuit claiming the payment of damages, and the Defendant claimed a counterclaim claiming the return of unjust enrichment. The principal lawsuit’s claim was entirely dismissed, and the counterclaim’s claim was wholly accepted.

Since the plaintiff filed an appeal only against a counterclaim, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim part.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgment to the plaintiff’s new argument at the court of first instance (excluding the judgment of the court of first instance on the claim of second instance). As such, it is acceptable

【Additional Part】 Article 201(1) of the Civil Act of the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the possessor in good faith obtains the negligence of possession.”

As the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate in good faith, even if he/she occupied, used, or inflicted damages on another person’s building without any legal ground, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return the profits from such possession and use to the Defendant.

Judgment

A bona fide possessor who has the right to acquire fruits pursuant to Article 201(1) of the Civil Code refers to a possessor who has the right to acquire fruits (ownership, superficies, leases, etc.) and has the right to acquire fruits, and there should be reasonable grounds to mislead such errors.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da22114 delivered on December 24, 1992, see Supreme Court Decision 92Da22114 delivered on December 24, 199). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that the Plaintiff had a title including the right to acquire the real estate

It is not sufficient to recognize that there was a basis for such misjudgmentation, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the above-mentioned facts and the above-mentioned evidences can be comprehensively admitted, namely, the Plaintiff.