Supreme Court rules redevelopment union can claim rent damages

The Supreme Court ruled on March 12 that a housing redevelopment union is entitled to claim damages equivalent to rent from a former owner who illegally delayed vacating a property. The decision establishes that the potential for rental income is not a prerequisite for claiming unjust enrichment from illegal occupation.

The dispute arose after the union completed ownership transfer procedures and deposited compensation funds, but the former owner refused to vacate. The union sued for rent-equivalent losses and additional financial costs.

Reversing the lower court, the high court stated that an intent to proceed with redevelopment rather than leasing does not preclude a claim for rent-equivalent damages. The justices reasoned that calculating unjust enrichment based on market rent is a rational standard for evaluating the benefit gained by the occupier. The burden of proving that no loss occurred lies with the party claiming the absence of damage.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to support the union's claim for additional financial costs. Proving causality requires more than simply pointing to a delay in handover.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Incheon District Court for a new trial regarding the rent-equivalent damages while dismissing the union's appeal concerning the financial cost claims. The ruling also noted that a party who has won a judgment in full cannot appeal simply due to dissatisfaction with the reasoning provided in the verdict.