Whether a person who provided property due to an illegal cause may claim compensation for his/her damages arising from the other party’s payment of property on the ground of an illegal act against the party’s recipient who processed the illegal cause (negative in principle)

Even if a person who provided property for an illegal cause was processed into the “illegal cause” by the recipient of the other party, it may not be asserted that he/she compensates for his/her damages arising from the payment of the other party’s property on the ground of the other party’s tort, barring any special circumstances that may be deemed obviously contrary to the social norms, barring special circumstances where the illegal cause exists only to the other party, or his/her illegality is significantly more than the illegality of the provider. In such a case, if the said claim for damages is accepted by the provider, it would result in the difference between the reimbursement that the provider performed by himself/herself or the recovery of the same economic object, and would be contrary to the legal ideology that has been legally specified in Article 746 of the Civil Act.

Articles 741, 746, and 750 of the Civil Act

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term or “the term”

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2012Na2376 decided April 17, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The main text of Article 746 of the Civil Act provides that “if a person pays property or provides labor due to an illegal cause, he/she shall not demand the return of such benefit.” This is to realize the general ideology of the law that a person who commits an act which is not socially reasonable, by carrying out a marking with Article 103 of the Civil Act, which invalidates a juristic act that violates good morals and other social order, is unable to assert such illegality and seek legal protection on his/her own. Such legal ideology should be achieved as much as possible, regardless of the legal form. From this perspective, the Supreme Court has rendered en banc Decision 79Da483 Decided November 13, 1979, where a transfer of ownership was made for the transfer of real estate due to a juristic act contrary to Article 103 of the Civil Act, the person who received the benefit shall deny the ownership right based on the original ownership that the person who received the benefit to whom the transfer becomes invalid, and further the benefit recipient shall acquire the ownership itself.

Therefore, even if a person who provided property due to an illegal cause processed the other party’s “illegal cause”, it is not possible to claim compensation for damages arising from the benefit of the other party’s tort, barring special circumstances where it may be deemed that the illegal cause exists only to the other party or his illegality is significantly larger than that of the provider, barring special circumstances where it may be deemed that the other party’s illegal cause is obviously contrary to the social norms. In such a case, if the other party’s claim for compensation is accepted, it would result in the difference between the benefits that the benefits the other party paid or the economic identical to the benefits the other party performed or the benefits the other party performed, and would be contrary to the legal ideology as seen above, which is legally specified in Article 746 of the Civil Act.

2. In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should return 100 million won from the Plaintiff’s general affairs, etc. in unjust enrichment under the pretext that the Defendant would make the indication of the registered titleholder of the forest of this case corrected at the request of the competent registry office as a member of the basic local government. Accordingly, the lower court denied the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the said monetary payment by the Plaintiff, etc. constitutes illegal consideration that ought to be effective

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on illegal consideration.

3. In addition, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for joint tort with the Plaintiff’s general secretary, etc. as to the act of embezzlement of money by the Plaintiff’s general secretary, etc. by intention or negligence, based on its stated reasoning.

According to the above legal principles 1. The plaintiff cannot claim against the defendant for damages equivalent to KRW 100 million on the ground of the defendant's tort, and the data that can be seen differently can not be found in the records. Ultimately, although the judgment of the court below does not contain some inappropriate parts, it is just in the conclusion that the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages of this case, and therefore, this part of the ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)