[예금][공2014하,2177]
The scope of “a creditor who received a benefit” as prescribed by Article 472 of the Civil Act / In a case where a person who received a performance receives a reimbursement and thereby extinguished a creditor’s existing claim by repaying his/her or a third party’s obligation to the creditor, whether the performance can be acknowledged as effective pursuant to Article 472 of the Civil Act (negative)
Article 472 of the Civil Act provides that a performance made to a person who has no authority to receive repayment in order to avoid the formation of legal relations as to the return of unnecessary chain unjust enrichment shall be effective to the extent that the obligee has received benefits from the performance. The term “for the obligee’s benefit” includes not only the case where the repayment recipient delivers the performance received to the obligee, but also the case where the obligee has substantial benefits to the obligee, such as where the repayment recipient appropriated the performance to the obligee’s performance for the obligee’s obligation to the obligee, or extinguishing the obligee’s existing obligation by repaying the obligee’s obligation to the third party on behalf of the obligee, but also the case where the repayment recipient has received performance and extinguished the obligee’s existing obligation by repaying the obligation to the obligee or to the third party on behalf of the obligee, it cannot be said that a substantial benefit has been incurred to the obligee, and therefore, it cannot
Article 472 of the Civil Act
East Asia Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jong-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Hong Sejong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na77292 decided January 25, 2013
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party, without authority, withdrawn money from the bank account in this case under the name of the plaintiff and deposited it into the MF account in this case under the name of the plaintiff, and held that even if the non-party, who was not entitled to receive payment, paid the money deposited in the account in this case to the non-party, the non-party, thereby gaining profits from acquiring a new claim for return of deposit equivalent to the amount deposited by the plaintiff by depositing it into the MF account in this case and repaying his liability for damages to the plaintiff. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff's deposit claim against the defendant corresponding to the amount
However, such judgment of the court below is hard to accept.
Article 472 of the Civil Act provides that a performance made to a person who has no authority to receive repayment in order to avoid the formation of legal relations as to the return of unnecessary chain unjust enrichment shall be effective to the extent that the obligee has received profits from the performance. The term “for the obligee’s benefit” includes not only the case where the repayment recipient delivers the performance received to the obligee, but also the case where the obligee has substantial profits to the obligee by appropriating the performance to the obligee’s performance for the obligee’s own obligation, by repaying the obligee’s obligation to a third party on behalf of the obligee, or extinguishing the obligee’s existing obligation by repaying the obligee’s obligation to the third party. However, where the repayment recipient extinguished the obligee’s existing obligation by performing the obligation to the obligee or to the third party on behalf of the obligee with the payment received by the repayment recipient, it cannot be said that a substantial profit has been incurred to the obligee, and therefore,
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, even if the non-party deposited money withdrawn without authority in the account of this case into the account of this case and repaid his liability for damages to the plaintiff, the plaintiff lost its existing damage claim against the non-party instead of acquiring the deposit claim in the account of this case, and thus, it cannot be said that the non-party lost its existing damage claim against the non-party, and thus, it cannot be said that the repayment effect under Article 472 of the Civil Act can not be recognized.
Nevertheless, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s deposit claim of this case extinguished by the validity of repayment pursuant to Article 472 of the Civil Act for reasons indicated in its holding. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of application under Article 472 of the Civil Act, 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 Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)