부당이득금반환
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Summary of the parties' assertion
A. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account.
However, since the original defendant is not aware of each other and the above remittance was made by mistake, the defendant is obliged to pay the above KRW 30 million to the plaintiff with the return of unjust enrichment.
B. The Defendant concluded a lease agreement with D, the wife of the Plaintiff, and received the above KRW 30 million as a part of the lease deposit, and returned the above money to D upon the termination of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 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 process of performance through the instruction of the other party to the contract (in a case where the benefits have been provided in a deceptive relationship), and the payment is not only made to the other party to the contract who has provided the payment, but also to the third party, the other party to the contract may not claim a return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the party received the payment against the third party without any legal ground.
(Supreme Court Decision 2001Da46730 Decided December 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da55447 Decided July 11, 2017, etc.) B.
In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account constitutes the so-called reduction benefits. The Defendant should be deemed to have duly received KRW 30 million as a part of the lease deposit according to a lease agreement with D.
Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff received payment without any legal ground.
The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.
① In the initial application for payment order, the Plaintiff requested “C” to lend KRW 200 million purchase fund for apartments, and KRW 30 million.