[이득금반환][공1992.7.1.(923),1844]
Effect of the receipt of the deposited article without reservation
Even if the reasons cited by the depositor as the cause of deposit are legally null and void, and thus the deposit is unlawful, if the deposited person designated as the recipient of the deposited goods in the deposit did not withhold any objection while receiving the deposited goods, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the deposited person accepted the cause of deposit as alleged by the depositor, and the legal effect shall accrue as asserted by the depositor as the cause of deposit.
Article 487 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu197 delivered on November 9, 1982 (Gong1983,113) 90Nu6125 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1990,2442) 90Nu7081 Delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong191,2446)
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant 1 and three others
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na5350 delivered on November 7, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
1. On January 19, 1987, the court below concluded a sales contract with Defendant 1 to purchase the forest land of this case owned by the non-party representing the plaintiff on behalf of the other defendants in the amount of KRW 10,000,000 as the down payment, and paid KRW 2,000,000 as the intermediate payment on January 23, 198, respectively, to Defendant 1. The court below determined that the plaintiff did not deliver documents necessary for the transfer of registration to the defendants, and that the defendants did not cancel the sales contract for the above reasons that the above contract was cancelled on May 18, 1987 due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff's failure to pay the remaining amount, and that the above contract was cancelled as part of restitution measures taken by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff did not receive the above intermediate payment of KRW 1,00,000 as the intermediate payment of this case, and that the plaintiff did not return the remaining amount to Seoul District Court after being deposited in his deposit of KRW 90,2000.
2. Even if the reasons cited by the depositors as the reasons for deposit are legally null and void, if the deposited person designated as the recipient of the deposited goods did not withhold any objection while receiving the deposited goods, it would be deemed that the deposited person’s legal effect takes place as alleged by the depositor, barring any special circumstance, on the ground that the deposited goods were accepted as the reasons for deposit. It would be deemed that the established precedents of the party members (Supreme Court Decision 80Nu124 delivered on July 22, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu492 delivered on February 10, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu277 delivered on May 25, 1982; Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu197 delivered on November 9, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6125 delivered on October 23, 190; and Supreme Court Decision 90Da397 delivered on the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendants’ deposited forest and forest funds.
This paper ultimately criticizes the judgment of the court below that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on rescission or deposit of contract on the premise that the facts acknowledged by the court below are inconsistent with the facts or the effect of the receipt of deposited goods on which the court below did not withhold an objection.
3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)