1. Article 35(1) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (wholly amended by Act No. 8367 of Apr. 11, 2007) provides that necessary support measures, such as tax reduction and exemption for convenience appearance and economic burden reduction for the use of cars, etc. by persons with disabilities, shall be established. The Ministry of Health and Welfare, from July 1, 2001, has a car sign for persons with disabilities attached, and purchases ELP car for persons with disabilities registered in the name of the disabled or their family members with welfare card or guardian card for the use of ELPG for transportation. According to the guidelines of the above business, one of the spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, spouse of lineal descendant, lineal descendant, lineal descendant, and sibling, who reside with the disabled and directly drives the ELP car, provided that the above support may be provided upon application by the guardian card.

Meanwhile, Article 35(2) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities stipulates that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall issue a mark identifying the disabled person's motor vehicle for convenience of support related to the use of the disabled person's motor vehicle, etc., and each item of Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 424 of Dec. 28, 2007) stipulates that the disabled person's motor vehicle is subject to the issuance of the above disabled person's motor vehicle sign, which is registered under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities or under the resident registration card in the same name as the disabled person registered under the Act on Welfare or the disabled person's name

In full view of the purport of the aforementioned statutes and guidelines, if a family member of a disabled person was issued a disabled person car sign, but fails to live together with a disabled person without having an address under the resident registration card, and becomes ineligible for the above business, it shall be deemed that the disabled person’s family members received benefits and lost the eligibility or authority to hold them. Nevertheless, if a family member of a disabled person has received the amount of discount subsidies by continuing to use the guardian card, the amount of discount subsidies provided during the pertinent period shall be returned to unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da218075, Jan. 14, 2016).

2. The lower court determined, as stated in its reasoning, that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of discount benefits equivalent to KRW 1,649,070 received by the Defendant is not permissible on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for return constitutes unjust enrichment in light of the legal basis and circumstances under which the Plaintiff provided discount benefits to the Defendant pursuant to the instant support policy, the lack of the statutory provisions on restitution of such benefits, and the legitimate trust of the beneficiary to be protected in the relationship attributable to the cause or the beneficial administrative action, etc.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant, as the father of B who is a disabled person, obtained a resident registration with B, and used the guardian card from the plaintiff as of October 17, 2005, and transferred B to 'Yong-gu, Yongsan-si D' on October 17, 2005, and was separated from B's resident registration. The defendant received a discount amounting to 1,649,070 won in total over 177 times from May 7, 2004 to September 5, 2006, including the period of separated households.

In light of the precedents of the Supreme Court as seen earlier, the defendant is deemed to have received the amount equivalent to the discount subsidy using the guardian card even though the defendant was separated from B and household and did not belong to the above business. Therefore, the amount under the name of the discount subsidy received during the period of separation from household should be returned as unjust enrichment.

Nevertheless, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could not seek the return of unjust enrichment to the Defendant. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the judgment of the Supreme Court under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, 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.