不測財產減少或現存利益舉證困難之累，善意占有人固患有之，善意不當得利受領人何嘗不患有之。然而，前者全然不負使用收益返還或償還義務（規範矛盾排除堅持之後果），後者卻負現存利益返還或償還義務。立法者就此差別待遇並未有合理性說理，故而為恣意。 假設僅有民法第 179 條、第 182 條第 1 項之設，而無設有第 952 條，則善意占有人僅負現存利益返還或償還義務，便受優遇－優遇1（次方）。今因有民法第 952條之設，依特別規定說，善意占有人全然不負使用收益返還或償還義務，便是受更優遇－優遇 2 （次方）。由是觀之，民法第 952 條為避免善意占有人不測財產減少，而使其全然不負返還或償還義務之作法，尚難謂屬適當。善意占有人返還或償還義務之全然免除，本已為更優遇（民法第 952 條），而法律上原因說使善意占有人此等義務權利化，豈非更更優遇－優遇 3 （次方）－其非屬適當，顯而易見。 民法第 179 條、第 182 條第 1 項不採返還或償還義務全部免除，而採現存利益返還或償還義務之規範設計，恰為善意全然迎合不具適當性之證明。善意占有人現存利益舉證困難之避免尚不具憲法保護位階，從而全然免除善意占有人使用收益返還或償還義務，亦即限制回復請求人使用收益權能之作法，尚難謂屬適當。善意占有人不負使用收益返還或償還義務（民法第 952），而善意所有人卻負現存利益返還或償還義務（民法第 179 條、第 182 條第 1 項），實為評價矛盾：善意占有人與善意所有人，兩者利益狀態並無不同，故而善意占有人實不應受有較優於善意所有人之待遇，恰足憑徵出，善意自主占有人使用收益返還或償還義務之全然免除作法不具適當性。 民法第 952 條因違反憲法恣意禁止及適當性原則，故無效。因而空缺出之待規範空間，則（應）為民法第 179 條、第 182 條第 1 項適用範圍所及。

The untoward property reduces or the proof difficult about existing interests whom the bona fide possessor of the thing could suffer for, the bona fide recipient could also suffer for the same. However, the former completely has no obligation to return or compensate usages and profits of the thing possessed (consequence after persistence in removal of contradiction in Norm), but the latter has obligation to return or compensate the existing interests. The lawgiver treat both of these same things but differently, and does not give a rational reason, hence it is arbitrarily. Assumption that there is only the Article 179amd 182, section 1 of the Civil Code, but not also 952, the bona fide possessor has only obligation to return or compensate existing interests, a Privileges is be made. Because of Article 952 of the Civil Code the bona fide possessor totally has no obligation to return or compensate usages and profits according to particular provisions theory, privileges to second power is be made. So Article 952 of the Civil Code is inadequate.The bona fide possessor totally has no obligation to return or compensate usages and profits. This is already privileges to second power. Under the theory of legal reasons there is privilege to third power being done, and therefore inadequate.Article 179 and 182, section 1 of Civil Code does not accept the legal model of complete Exempt from obligation to return or compensate usages and profits, but the model of obligation to return or compensate existing interests. This proves that the complete conformance in good faith is inadequate. The right of editor to take usages and profits from the thing is guarantied by the constitution. Complete exempt of bona fide possessor from his obligation to return or compensate usages and profits means the legal restriction of right of editor to take usages and profits from the thing. The proof difficult of bona fide possessor has no constitutional meaning, and therefore, this complete exempt of bona fide possessor from his obligation to return or compensate usages and profits is inadequate. Bona fide possessor has no obligation to return or compensate usages and profits (Article 952 of the Civil Code), but bona fide owner has the obligation to return or compensate the existing interests. There is really a contradiction: There is no difference between bona fide possessor and owner. Hence, Bona fide possessor should not be better treated than bona fide owner, and this is just enough to sign up that complete exempt of bona fide possessor from his obligation to return or compensate usages and profits means non-appropriateness. Article 952 of the Civil Code as a result of violation of the Constitution is invalid. And therefore Article 179 and 182, section 1 of the Civil Code should be applied by this case.