점유자-회복자 관계에서 비용상환에 대한 소고 - 대법원 2022. 6. 30. 선고 2020다209815 판결 사건을 재구성하여 -

Abstract

When the owner requests the return of the property from the possessor, if the possessor does not have the right to possess the object, the possessor must return the property. At this time, the occupier can claim reimbursement for the expenses he or she incurred. The right to claim reimbursement for costs related to the subject matter may arise when a person who has acquired the subject matter from an unauthorized person returns the subject matter to the owner. It can also occur when the subject matter is transferred from a person with authority, but the contract becomes invalid or canceled and the subject matter is returned to the owner. The recently announced Supreme Court decision 2020da209815 raises the possibility and necessity of looking at the right to claim reimbursement of expenses under Article 203 of the Civil Act from a slightly different perspective than existing previous research. This article reconstructs the case of this ruling, focusing on the right to claim reimbursement of costs between the occupier and the owner. Through this, this article draws the following conclusions. A bona fide possessor has the right to acquire fruit from the object in possession, and since the fruit belongs to the holder of the right to receive it when separated from the original object, a previous possessor can validly acquire fruit received while in possession. If the former possessor can validly acquire the fruit, the former possessor cannot claim reimbursement of ordinary expenses from the owner. In this case, if the previous occupant requests a return of the amount paid pursuant to the invalidated contract, the interest on the amount may also be repaid. Since the beneficial expenses incurred by the previous occupier increase the value of the object, it is common for the current occupier to transfer possession of the object through a counter-benefit when transferring possession of the object from the previous occupier. Therefore, in principle, there is no need to recognize the former occupant's right to claim reimbursement of costs. However, in cases such as the case in this ruling where it is difficult to say that the property was transferred through compensation in return, Article 203, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act can be applied by analogy to the previous occupier.