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. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff ordered B to contract the construction of the wabre in Suwon-gu, Busan.
On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,380,80,00 in the Defendant’s account at the Defendant’s request. The Defendant did not work properly and received only labor cost unfairly.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 3,380,80 to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. In a case where a party to a contract directly provides a third party who has a different contractual relationship with the other party by shortening the performance process through the instruction of the other party to the contract, etc., the party to the contract may not file a claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the party received payment against the third party without any legal cause.
In such a case, if one of the parties to a contract can file a claim for return of unjust enrichment directly against a third party on the ground that there is a defect in the legal relationship of the party causing the payment to the other party, it would not only impose the risk burden under the contract concluded under his/her own responsibility on the third party, but also cause the result contrary to the principle of contract law, but also it is unfair because the third party who is the beneficiary infringes on the other
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da46730 Decided December 26, 2003, and 2006Da46278 Decided September 11, 2008, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s remittance of money to the Defendant’s account is based on an agreement between the Plaintiff and B, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant, a third party, who is not a party to the contract, is not a party to the contract.
2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.