부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the new arguments of the plaintiff’s trial at the court of the first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment at the court of the first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim amount was the money that the Plaintiff lent to the non-party company, the Defendant formed an appearance to believe that the Defendant had a legitimate right to exercise the claim by accounting on the account books of the non-party company in his/her name, despite having to be disposed of with the Plaintiff’s claim on the account books of the non-party company. Since the Defendant received the instant money from the non-party company, it constitutes a repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim.
Accordingly, inasmuch as the Plaintiff, a genuine obligee, was unable to claim the return of the loan to the non-party company, the Defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.
In addition, the Defendant’s repayment as quasi-Possessor of the claim constitutes tort on the ground of infringement of the third party’s claim, where the attribution of the claim itself is infringed, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount of this case’s tort.
B. In light of the following circumstances, the “quasi-Possessor of a claim” under Article 470 of the Civil Act refers to a person who has an appearance to believe that he/she has a legitimate authority to exercise his/her claim in light of the general transactional concept from the standpoint of the person who performed the obligation. The mere fact that the Defendant was the representative director of the non-party company at the time, in light of the fact that he/she was a representative director of the non-party company at the time, he/she managed the non-party company as having a provisional deposit in the non-party