[공사금][집18(3)민,276]
Even if the plaintiff completed the construction by being awarded a contract with the head of the Goyang-gun Gun and the wall surface of Gyeonggi-do and the defendant Gyeonggi-do benefits without any legal ground, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had any damage to the plaintiff as long as he had the balance of the remuneration to be paid from the above non-party who ordered the work. Therefore, the claim for return of unjust enrichment is groundless.
Even if the plaintiff completed the embankment construction by being awarded a contract with the head of Goyang-gun and the wall surface, and the defendant Gyeonggi-do benefits without any legal ground, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had any damage to the plaintiff since he had the right to receive the remuneration from the above contractor. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant cannot be established.
Article 741 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Gyeonggi-do
Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1730 decided May 1, 1970
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The defendant's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, when the plaintiff receives relief from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of 1965, 1965, such as Won-si, a planning project under Sub-Section 480, 2 of the 1965, the plaintiff completed the above embankment construction and agreed to receive 1,858,500 won and wheat 36,615,2 knbs and other miscellaneous expenses, respectively, as remuneration, 5% of the above 1965, and completed the construction work in November 8 of the same year. Since the plaintiff's current completion of the construction works, the plaintiff's payment of 550,177, 31, 936, and 960, 1960, 196, 206, 206, 360, 360, 460, 196, 460, 19.
However, as a general requirement for establishing unjust enrichment, it is necessary to obtain another person's property or labor without any legal ground and thereby inflict damage on another person. In this case, the plaintiff completed the construction under the contract such as the e.g., e., s., s. 1 and s. 2 with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and received cash and wheat as part of its remuneration from the s. e.g., s., cash and wheat as the contractor had already been paid. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be said to have suffered any damage due to the completion of the construction. Thus, the ground for appeal is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, barring special circumstances.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court