(b) The case affirming an insurer’s claim for return of unjust enrichment in light of the invalidity of the insurance contract, where: (a) A entered into an insurance contract by stealing the name of B to guarantee the obligation of C arising from continuous transactions and the insurer has paid C insurance proceeds in arrears; and

(b) The case affirming the insurer’s claim for return of unjust enrichment in light of the invalidity of the insurance contract where: (a) A entered into an insurance contract by stealing the name of B in order to guarantee the insurer’s obligation to Byung due to continuous transactions and thus the insurer has paid the insurance proceeds to Byung; and

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded an agency contract with the defendant on December 2, 1989 that the non-party 1, who had a circumstance to be unable to register his business under his own name, begins sales business of Seodaemun-gu under his name, which was the non-party 2, and entered into the above agency contract with the defendant on the condition that the defendant would sell the office equipment and supplies supplied by the defendant to the end users, and without the consent of the non-party 2, the defendant would arbitrarily use the above non-party 2's name as the defendant for the insurance contract for the payment of the business guarantee money under the above agency contract, and concluded the above insurance contract with the above non-party 1 to December 2, 1989 with the above insurance contract without any legal ground that the defendant would not be deemed to have received the above insurance money under the above agency contract with the non-party 1 to be null and void, and thus the defendant should not be deemed to have received the above insurance money under the above agency's name and paid it to the plaintiff.

2. However, in cases where a contract is concluded by using another person's name at will, as in the instant case, the identity of the person who is the party to the contract should be determined first. If the intent of the actor and the other party as to who is the party to the contract coincide, the act of the actor or the act of the nominal holder shall be determined according to the consistent intent. However, if it is impossible to determine that the other party's reasonable human being based on the nature, content, purpose, circumstances of the contract, and specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, it is reasonable to determine the party's understanding of the actor and the nominal owner as the party to the contract, and to determine the formation and effect

In this case, the judgment of the court below is that the above non-party 1 shall be the party to the insurance contract of this case. However, according to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1 entered into the insurance contract of this case as if the non-party 2 was the party to the insurance contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff knew that the non-party 1 was the non-party 2 and entered into the insurance contract of this case. Thus, there is no room to deem that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 were the parties to the insurance contract of this case.

In addition, according to the records, the insurance contract of this case can be seen as a contract guaranteeing the payment of the business guarantee money to guarantee the performance of the goods to be borne by the policyholder in a continuous transaction relationship with the defendant. Thus, even though the above non-party 1 was in a position of being unable to register his business under his name, he applied for the insurance contract of this case under his name as if the non-party 2 did not interfere with the purchase of the insurance, and it is deemed that the plaintiff was aware that the non-party 1, who actually entered into the contract, knew only that the non-party 1 was the non-party 2, who was the subscriber on the document, and was about the non-party 1, who did not have any defect in the contract (According to the evidence No. 3-26 cited by the court below, the plaintiff was objectively acknowledged as the non-party 1, who was the party to the contract of this case, since it was a computerized inquiry about the non-party 1, who was the party to the contract of this case, and the plaintiff did not know that the non-party 1 was the party.

Therefore, the party who entered into the instant insurance contract with the Plaintiff should be deemed to be the above non-party 1, not the above non-party 2. In fact, since the above non-party 1 entered into the instant insurance contract with the name of the non-party 2 at will without any authority granted from the non-party 2, the instant insurance contract cannot be effective in accordance with the terms of the contract, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant’s receipt of the instant insurance money from the Plaintiff on the ground that the non-party 1 did not perform his agency obligation under the agency contract is ultimately a receipt of the insurance money based on the non-effective insurance contract. Thus, the Defendant’s non-party 1’s non-performance of obligation against the Defendant without any legal ground without considering whether the insurance accident under the instant insurance contract was an insurance accident under the insurance contract.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the above non-party 1 was a party to the insurance contract of this case under the insurance contract of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of legal act, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations or unlawful

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)