beta
(영문) 대법원 2018.07.12 2018다204992

추심금

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the Defendant’s return of unjust enrichment to C exists (Ground of appeal No. 3)

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 performance process by the direction of the other party, etc. (in a case where benefits have been provided in a so-called triang relationship), not only the other party has provided a benefit to the other party, but also the other party has provided a benefit to the third party.

Therefore, a party to a contract cannot file a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against a third party on the ground that he/she received payment without legal cause.

In such a case, if one party to a contract is able to claim a return of unjust enrichment against a third party on the ground that there is a defect in the legal relationship between the party causing the payment to the other party or that the contract has been terminated, it would not only transfer the risk burden pursuant to the contract under its own responsibility to the third party, but also cause a result contrary to the principles of contract law, but also infringe the third party's defense right against the other party.

(Supreme Court Decision 2001Da46730 Decided December 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da55447 Decided July 11, 2017, etc.) B.

The judgment below

The reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the court below reveal the following facts.

(1) Acheonyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Acheonyang Construction”) is a construction company and a construction company that newly constructs and sells a lot of ground B apartment and four lots of land (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

C on October 208, 2008, concluded a contract for the sale of Acheon Construction and the instant apartment 1709 (hereinafter “instant contract for sale”).

(2) Acheon Construction was deposited the sales price under the instant sales contract into the fund management account opened in the name of the Defendant, a real estate trust company.