In a case where Party A, who operated a private taxi, received 10,000 won 10,000 won from Party B’s volunteer servicemen and operated to the destination, refused Party B’s request for return of the remainder other than the actual taxi charges, the case holding that Party A’s act constitutes an act of receiving unfair fares or fees.

In a case where Party A, who operated a private taxi, received KRW 10,00 from Party B, and operated Party B to the destination, and refused Party B’s request for return of the remainder other than the actual taxi charges, the case holding that Party A’s act constitutes an act of receiving unfair fares or fees on the ground that Party B was a party to passenger transport contract, and Party B was obligated to refund the difference between the advance payment and the actual taxi charges, provided that there is no evidence to find that Party A was aware that Party B was a party to the passenger transport contract and Party A was paid in full as remuneration.

Article 105 of the Civil Act

Offenders

Seoul Northern District Court Order 2012Na1679 dated November 13, 2012

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, while the appellant operated a private taxi on May 4, 2012 (vehicle number omitted), he was paid KRW 10,000,00,00,000, along with a request from the instant passenger to take the said passenger back to the boarding station in the vicinity of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, Yeongdeungpo-gu Office. The appellant was operating the said passenger to the boarding station, and the fare for taxi riding meters was 3,200,00,000 won at the time of arrival in the boarding station, and the appellant was demanded to return the remainder of KRW 10,00,000,000, excluding the actual taxi rate of KRW 3,200,000, which has been paid by the passenger to the appellant, but the appellant rejected it.

2. The appellant's assertion;

The appellant entered into a passenger transport contract with the passenger of this case with the passenger of this case, and received the fare from the passenger of this case in advance pursuant to the above passenger transport contract. Since the appellant is not a party to the above passenger transport contract, there is no obligation to refund the difference between the advance payment and the actual taxi fee, the appellant cannot be deemed to have received unfair fare on the ground that the appellant did not refund the difference.

3. Determination

A. The issue of interpreting the intent of a party to a contract is who is the party to a contract and what is the content of a contract is. The interpretation of such party’s intent should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules and the common sense of social norms and transaction norms so as to conform to the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively considering the motive and background of the contract concluded, the purpose and genuine intent of the party to the contract to achieve through the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da102452, Oct. 13, 201; 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, it is merely based on the intention of the appellant to deliver or express his/her intention to the appellant for the reason that the rent of the passenger of this case asked the appellant to leave the destination of the passenger. In general, it is difficult to view that the passenger transport contract by taxi is based on the intention to acquire the right and duty as a party to the passenger transport contract. If the passenger transport contract by taxi is deemed to be a party to the passenger transport contract, the right to claim excess charges under the passenger transport contract is not recognized if the other party is more than the amount of the advance payment by the passenger, and the right to claim excess charges is not recognized (the party to the contract who provided the payment under the contract can not claim the return of unjust enrichment directly to the third party, who is the subject of the benefit accrued to the passenger, as well as the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment in excess of the amount of the passenger transport contract (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da6564, 6571, Aug. 23, 2002).

B. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the appellant has the duty to refund the difference between KRW 10,00 and the actual 3,200,80,000 to the passenger of this case, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the passenger of this case paid the taxi fee in advance to the passenger of this case to the passenger of this case, in full view of the fact that it is difficult to recognize that the passenger of this case paid the fare in advance to the passenger of this case to the passenger of this case as remuneration, and that the passenger of this case paid the fare in proportion to the distance of operation or time, and that the taxi fee is paid in proportion to the fare for the safe transport of the passenger of this case to the destination.

Therefore, the appellant’s refusal to request the return of the difference between the passengers of this case constitutes an act of receiving unfair fares or fees.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Thai-tae (Presiding Judge)