There is an important issue in legal and jurisprudence discussions: Does possession of others' property permitted by the owner, with no voluntary waste, also brings about civil liability? Or does owner's permission remove liability? From the purport of some jurists' statements, it is implied that possession of others' property permitted by the owner does not bring about civil liability. Some other jurists have also stipulated that permitted possession enjoys a fiduciary nature. On the other hand, from the statements of some jurists in some cases, it is inferred that possession of permitted property brings about civil liability. In permitted possession, although the possessor possesses a property with owner's permission, he will be liable for it. Jurists' statements in terms of the fact that whether or not owner's permission negates civil liability is not thus much clear and self-descriptive. They differ in different situations and implications. In this research, types of (absolute, trust, liability) permission were dealt with and this result was obtained that absolute permission does not negate liability. Therefore, those who believe that absolute permission brings about trust possession or removes possessor's civil liability are not right. Yet, if possession is free of charge, with no compensation, the permission will not be liable. On the other hand, is has been reviewed that if permission is granted in trust, this type of permission will cause possessor's removal of civil liability and trust possession, whether this permission is granted in the form of determinate or indeterminate contracts.