A. Whether a person who paid the money due to an illegal cause can seek the return of the money on the premise that the person simply deposited the money (negative)

B. Whether the provision of money to the Do Governor as a group of solicitation expenditure upon requesting the Do Governor to obtain a taxi transportation business license upon solicitation constitutes “when the illegal cause exists only for the beneficiary” under the proviso of Article 746 of the Civil Act (negative)

C. Whether an agreement is valid to return the money to return it where it would be impossible to obtain the license at the time of granting the money referred to in paragraph B (negative)

A. The purport of the provision of Article 746 of the Civil Act, along with Article 103 of the Civil Act, is that a person who, regardless of its form, commits an act that is not socially reasonable, expresses the intent of the law that makes it impossible to seek restitution by asserting the invalidity of his own illegal act, regardless of its form, and does not limit only the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, and thus, it is not allowed for the person who paid the money due to illegal cause to claim restitution of the money on the premise that the delivery of the money

B. It does not constitute illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, which constitutes an act of falling under Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the same Act, and the proviso of Article 746 of the same Act provides that “when the illegal cause exists only to the beneficiary” is not applicable to “when the illegal cause exists only to the beneficiary.”

C. Even if the agreement was made to return the money when the said “B” was unable to obtain the license at the time of delivery, such agreement ultimately constitutes an agreement within the scope of seeking the return of illegal consideration, which shall be deemed to be null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order.

(b)Article 746(b) of the Civil Code, Section 78(c) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 103 of the Civil Code;

Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Da483 decided Nov. 13, 1979 (Gong1979, 1238) decided Sep. 29, 1989 (Gong1989, 1578)

[Judgment of the court below]

Park Jin-Jin et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na19239 delivered on November 14, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 746 of the Civil Act, along with Article 103 of the Civil Act, on illegal consideration, a person who commits an act with no social feasibility and the basic concept of private law, expresses the intent of the law that makes it impossible to seek restitution by asserting the invalidity of his own illegal act regardless of its form, and does not limit only the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and thus, it is not allowed for the person who paid the money on the ground of illegal cause to seek a return of the money on the premise that the delivery of the money is simply deposited.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff heard that the defendant 1 and the deceased, who became aware of his pro-Japanese on November 1, 1987, could be able to ask the Cheongbuk-do Governor to obtain a 30-year taxi transport business license through his well-known person, and then came up with the teaching expenses after he requested the Cheongbuk-do Governor to obtain the 30-year taxi transport business license within the Cheongbuk-si. In other words, there is a relationship with the defendant 1, and the rank as the head of the Cheongbuk-do Security Unit at the time the defendant 1 and the above deceased on the 12th of that month upon requesting the above Cheongbuk-do Governor to make a request for the above licensing, and thus, the plaintiff's above delivery of the money to the defendant 1 and the above deceased on the Cheongbuk-do Governor constitutes an illegal cause under Article 78 (1) 4 of the Civil Code, and it constitutes an illegal cause under Article 78 (4) of the Civil Code.

In addition, as the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff agreed to return the above money to the plaintiff when the creditor could not obtain the above license at the time of the plaintiff's delivery to the deceased, and even if the above license was not acquired thereafter, such agreement is ultimately an agreement that belongs to the category of claim for return of illegal consideration, and it shall be null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order. Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no argument that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 746 and Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)