[1] The requirements for the application of the non-debted payment under Article 742 of the Civil Code

[2] Whether the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment is established in a case where a local government paid compensation by mistake as to the land already incorporated into a river area in accordance with Article 2 of the Addenda to the River Act as amended (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a local government paid compensation for a land already incorporated into a river area under Article 2 of the Addenda to the River Act as amended by the local government for the purpose of enforcing the former River Act, whether it constitutes a non-debt repayment suitable for the concept of the Do (negative)

[4] In a case where a local government received compensation by mistake for the land already incorporated into a river area at the time of the enforcement of the former River Act, the starting point of the statute of limitations for the right to

[1] Article 742 of the Civil Code concerning the repayment of non-debts applies to a case where the person who performed the obligation knew that he did not have any obligation, and in a case where he did not know that he did not have any obligation, it shall not apply

[2] Upon the enforcement of the amended River Act (Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), and Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), the Regulations on the Compensation for Incorporation of Land into River (Act No. 11919 of Jun. 12, 1986) were enforced. In order to compensate for the landowner who lost his/her private right as a river area due to the enforcement of the amended River Act (Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), the local government had any duty to pay compensation based on the above Act, notwithstanding the fact that he/she is liable to compensate for the above land, if the owner of the above land deposits compensation to him/her, and if the local government did not know that he/she did not have any obligation to compensate the above land.

[3] Notwithstanding the absence of any obligation to pay compensation by being incorporated into a river area at the time of the enforcement of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), where a local government is aware that it has a liability to compensate by erroneous interpretation of the law and deposits the amount equivalent to the compensation, and the owner of the above land receives it, such payment shall be deemed to have been made by mistake. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, a claim for its return may be filed by a person who is not a debtor. Even if the above land was incorporated into a river area and the above deposit was deposited as compensation for the above land, it shall not be deemed that the above payment deposit constitutes a non-debt repayment in conformity with the concept of the Do, unless

[4] In a case where a local government received compensation money deposited by mistake for the land incorporated into a river area at the time of the enforcement of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), the local government's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment due to the withdrawal of deposit money by the local government is created when the pertinent land owner paid the deposit money so that the local government is unable to recover it, and the statute of limitations thereof also run

[1] Article 742 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 741 and 742 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of December 31, 1984) / [3] Articles 744 and 745 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of December 31, 1984) / [4] Articles 166(1) and 741 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of December 31, 1984)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na30891 delivered on November 21, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The provisions of Article 742 of the Civil Code concerning the repayment of non-debts apply to cases where the person who performed the obligation knows that he did not have any obligation, and in cases where he did not know that he did not have any obligation, it shall not apply regardless

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, each of the land in this case was already incorporated into a river area pursuant to the construction schedule public notice (No. 897) at the time of enforcement of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971). The new River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971) was enforced, and for the compensation to the landowner who lost his private right as incorporated into a river area due to the enforcement of the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984) and Article 2 of the amended Enforcement Rule of the River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11919 of Jun. 12, 198), and the plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the compensation to the defendant.

The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's deposit amount was due to the plaintiff's gross negligence and the plaintiff's failure to know that he did not have an obligation to pay the compensation amount, which constitutes a non-payment under Article 742 of the Civil Code, is somewhat insufficient, but its reasoning is eventually justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to non-payment like the theory of lawsuit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

As seen earlier, if the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff after being incorporated into the river area at the time of the enforcement of the former River Act, and the Defendant deposited the amount of compensation with the knowledge that the Plaintiff had the obligation to pay the compensation by wrong interpretation of the law, then the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the return of the compensation, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the compensation. Thus, even if each land of this case was incorporated into the river area, the Defendant lost its ownership by its incorporation into the river area, and even if the deposit was deposited as the compensation for each land of this case, it cannot be deemed that the above deposit constitutes a non-payment in conformity with the concept of the Do.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to debt repayment.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The court below held that as long as the defendant filed the lawsuit of this case on June 26, 1995, before five years from the date of the withdrawal of the deposit money, the statute of limitations has not expired. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expiration of the statute of limitations. It is without merit.

4. 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)