[2] In a case where Gap, while he was employed as a local tax official, embezzled several times by preparing a false document and remitting overpaid or erroneously paid money to his account in the name of his relative, Eul, etc., and Eul used the money that he remitted to himself or received as expenses for house repair, etc., the case reversing the judgment below which acknowledged Eul's obligation to return unjust enrichment by examining only whether there was bad faith or gross negligence as to whether the said money was embezzled or embezzled

[2] In a case where Gap, while he was employed as a local tax official, embezzled documents as if there was no reason to return erroneous or erroneous payments to the deceased or residents other than the government, etc., and embezzled money several times by way of remitting the erroneous payments to the account under the name of his family members including B who are natives and sons, and as part of the remaining money and embezzlement money transferred to Eul, Eul used the money separately received to Eul for the collection and repair expenses and the purchase expenses of vehicles, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged Eul's return of unjust enrichment by sending or delivering part of the embezzlement money to Eul, on the grounds that it can be deemed that Eul donated money to Eul, and it should have deliberated on whether there was a bad faith or gross negligence as to the fact that it was embezzled at the time of receiving or delivering the above money, but it should have judged whether there was unjust enrichment by examining only whether it was bona fide acquisition.

The system of unjust enrichment imposes an obligation of return on a benefiting person based on the principle of fairness and justice in a case where the benefiting person's property gains lack legal grounds, and it is reasonable to view that the creditor's acquisition of money has legal grounds in relation to the victim unless the creditor has acted in bad faith or with gross negligence as to the fact that the money embezzled from the victim is embezzled in the repayment of his/her obligation to the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5373, 53740, Mar. 13, 2008, etc.). Such legal principles are the same in a case where the debtor has donated the money embezzled to a third party.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, while serving as a local tax official belonging to the plaintiff, the non-party embezzled part of the money to the defendant's total amount of 94,812,300 won from the defendant's 16th time to 16th time as the defendant's her friendly son's agricultural bank account, while serving as the non-party as a local tax official. The non-party embezzled the money from February 4, 2003 to April 18, 2008 by taking the above 251 as a total of 1,271,60,810 won from the non-party's Embezzlement or misappropriation to the non-party's Embezzlement's account, and the defendant should be deemed to have received some of the money from the non-party's Embezzlement or misappropriation to the non-party's account, and the defendant should be deemed to have received some of the money from the non-party's Embezzlement or misappropriation to the non-party's account transfer.

Therefore, the court below should have examined whether the Defendant was guilty of bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the embezzlement of this case, after receiving a considerable amount of money from the Nonparty or having received a separate payment from the Nonparty, and whether the Defendant did not properly verify the source of the money, and whether the amount of money remaining after transferring the money from the original remittance to the Nonparty, and the Defendant’s transfer of money in addition to the money received separately from the Nonparty, and whether there was a bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the Defendant at the time of receiving or receiving the transfer of the donation of this case from the Nonparty, and then recognized the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment by examining whether the Defendant acquired the money in good faith or not. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on unjust enrichment and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)