beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against Plaintiff EZ is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Plaintiff .
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Plaintiff EZ’s ground of appeal
A. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff EZ acquired the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of installing public facilities against the Defendant from the F Q Q, the spouse of the Plaintiff EZ, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the Plaintiff EZ acquired was based on the sales contract that falls under commercial activities and the claim for return of unjust enrichment by the person subject to relocation measures also requires a prompt resolution of transactional relationship, which is similar to that of commercial transactions, was extinguished by the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period.
B. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the sales contract of this case, which is a primary exchange of relocation measures, is a commercial activity for profit-making purposes. In light of the background and cause of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the status and relationship of the parties, it is difficult to view that there is a need to promptly resolve the above legal relationship to the same extent as that of the commercial transaction relationship. Thus, Article 64 of the Commercial Act does not apply to the claim for return of unjust enrichment.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da20244, Sept. 28, 2016). Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on extinctive prescription, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Plaintiff EB’s ground of appeal in light of the record, the lower court determined that Plaintiff EB failed to meet the requirements for a person subject to measures for resettlement as prescribed by relevant statutes on the grounds stated in its reasoning, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.