[부당이득금반환][집19(2)민,222]
If the provisional payment was appropriated as a fine or a surcharge without legitimate notification, it would be unjust enrichment.
If the provisional payment was appropriated for a fine or a surcharge without legitimate notification, it would constitute unjust enrichment.
Article 227 of the Customs Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2741 decided April 14, 1971
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney and the litigation performer are also examined.
The judgment of the court below is just in holding that the notice disposition by the head of Seoul Customs Office cannot be recognized as being delivered to the plaintiffs, and there is no error of law as a documentary evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and that the notice disposition was not delivered to the plaintiffs, and the provisional payment, which the head of Seoul Customs Office had already received from the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 239 (2) of the Customs Act at the time of the Seoul Customs Act, was appropriated as a fine or a surcharge. Thus, the judgment below is just in holding that the defendant is liable to return the unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the customs law at the time
The arguments are without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
The presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Korea (Presiding Judge) shall be the red net shots and the white shots