[선박수리비청구사건][하집1984(2),226]
Whether the repair of a ship under a contract with the lessee of the ship constitutes unjust enrichment of the lessor of the ship.
In the event that a lessor receives a contract for repair of a ship from a lessee who bears the repair cost during the lease contract period and sells it to the other party, and the lessee becomes insolvent, even if the lessee becomes insolvent, it is not necessary to return to the repairer the profit equivalent to the repair cost received by the lessor as unjust enrichment.
Article 741 of the Civil Act
Busan Shipbuilding Industries Corporation
Dongyang Gas Fuel Corporation
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,500,000 won with an interest rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the day when a copy of the complaint was served on the defendant to the day of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
On May 8, 1983, the Plaintiff asserted that the repair cost would be paid to the Defendant since it commenced the repair from May 8, 1983 to the Defendant upon receiving a request for repair with the amount of KRW 11,50,000 for the repair cost of KRW 11,50,00,00 for the Defendant’s vessel owned by the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the repair cost would be paid to the Plaintiff is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff requested the repair cost. Rather, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above repair cost would be paid to the Plaintiff is without merit. Rather, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above repair cost would be paid to the Defendant from the Defendant, the above repair cost would be acknowledged by the Defendant’s offering of evidence Nos. 3 (Ship Register, A’s registry, and tax invoice) and Nos. 3-1, 2 (Wedi and tax invoice), and that the Defendant’s offering of testimony to the witness Y, which was based on the premise that the above Defendant’s repair claim was not the above Defendant’s repair contract, but the above repair of the Plaintiff’s claim.
In other words, the plaintiff again increased the value of the repair cost due to the plaintiff's service and the repair by the cost contribution. After the termination of the above lease agreement, the defendant sold the above vessel of which value is increased as above to the non-party Dongdong Ship Co., Ltd., thereby benefiting the amount equivalent to the repair cost out of the purchase price, and the above U-Nam Shipping Co., Ltd. which requested the repair of the vessel of this case becomes insolvent and insolvent, so the plaintiff's claim for repair cost against the company of this case was substantially in valueless. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the defendant should return the profit to the plaintiff, since he obtained the plaintiff's labor and property without any legal ground and sustained the benefit equivalent to the repair cost.
However, even if the Plaintiff spent the above vessel repair services and expenses, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff sustained damages from the above contribution, as it would obtain the above repair expense claims under the contract agreement with the above non-party company, and thereafter, it cannot be deemed that the damage was directly caused by the defendant's profit. In addition, according to the above Eul evidence 2, it can be seen that the repair expense under the above vessel lease agreement between the defendant and the above non-party company was agreed to bear the above non-party company. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have the right to receive the repair expense upon the termination of the lease agreement. Thus, the conclusion that the above non-party company obtained the above repair expense upon the rescission of the contract without the purpose of the lease agreement, or that the defendant bears the above repair expense claims against the above non-party company, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above non-party company's acquisition of unjust enrichment by the non-party company's failure to meet the above repair expense claims, barring special circumstances, should be justified.
Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is neither reasonable nor reasonable, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Seo Jong-woo (Presiding Judge)