The case holding that unjust enrichment does not exist

Even if a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit based on the legal principle that a person who withdrawn the lawsuit after the final judgment was rendered on the merits becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the defendant's benefit cannot be deemed as unfair without any legal ground, even if the defendant's benefit was to be a result of avoiding the obligation to pay money.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1722 delivered on April 22, 1969 (Kakadd 400, Supreme Court Decision 17Du28 delivered on April 22, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 741(17)500 delivered on June 22, 196

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (67A12063) of the first instance court

This appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The plaintiff et al. shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant is demanding the plaintiff 1 to pay the amount of KRW 310,00, KRW 190,000, and KRW 190,000 to the plaintiff 2 with an annual interest rate of 5% from January 1, 1966 to the date of full payment.

On December 31, 1965, Nonparty 1, who is an son of the plaintiff et al., filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against the defendant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Seoul Army Base Headquarters, non-party 2's negligence on the driving of the non-party 2's disease, etc. was historical, and on February 1, 1966, the plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Civil District Court (6A8) on April 20, 1966 on the ground that the plaintiff et al.'s mobilization was filed against the defendant on the ground that the non-party 1, who was the son of the plaintiff et al., had been on the road at the entrance of the Busan High School, Busan High Court, 310,00 won, 190,000 won, and 196,000 won were withdrawn from the above judgment of the Seoul High Court, and the defendant again filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff 1,661,000 won,000 won.

However, even though the plaintiff et al. suffered damages as mentioned above by the plaintiff et al., but in fact, after the plaintiff et al. was aware of the lawsuit that was not known at all, it was revealed that the plaintiff et al. appointed an attorney and withdrawn the lawsuit, and the above prior suit is recognized as a duplicate lawsuit as long as the requirements for separate lawsuit are not satisfied, only the subsequent suit are illegal, and only the subsequent suit that is inappropriate to have been withdrawn and the subsequent suit cannot be affected by the order of the court. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the prior suit on the ground of the above different legal principles, the plaintiff et al. cannot again file a lawsuit for damages, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay damages to the plaintiff et al. without any legal ground (at least the sum cited in the judgment of the first instance court, 500,000 won as the sum cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the amount equivalent to 50 percent per annum from January 1, 196 to the date of full payment).

However, even if the defendant is exempted from the duty to compensate for damages due to the above circumstance, it is not deemed that the above benefit of the defendant was unfair as alleged by the plaintiff et al., so even if the plaintiff's claim in the principal lawsuit is no longer reasonable, and thus, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim in the principal lawsuit should be dismissed. As such, the original judgment with the purport of this purport is just and without merit, and the appeal is dismissed, and the cost of appeal is borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Nam-nam (Presiding Judge)