2016Da4181 Return of Unjust Enrichment

1. H:

2. I

3. K;

4. L.

5. M.

6. 0

7. P.

Q. Q.

Es. Es.S.P

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na651 Decided November 26, 2015

2016, 8.18

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part concerning the money calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from June 25, 2010 to July 1, 2010 as to each of the corresponding money recorded in the "amount of prize" in the attached Form 5 of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance corresponding to that part shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

Of the total litigation costs, 2/5 shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the calculation of site costs, the court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity, by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the results of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court pursuant to the aforementioned principle of free evaluation of evidence, the fact that the lower court lawfully confirmed is not beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that, in calculating the total site cost for a basic living facility, the total project area is 832,794.4m, the total project area is 832,794m, and the area of the basic living facility is 159,12.4m, and it did not include the road area reverted to the Defendant without compensation.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is purporting to dispute the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court below, and is merely an error of the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to free evaluation. In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the cost of installing basic living facilities, the area to be retained and retained, and the calculation of the cost of using basic living facilities, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the starting date of legal interest on beneficiaries in bad faith

A. According to Articles 748(2) and 749(2) of the Civil Act, a malicious beneficiary shall compensate for any damage inflicted upon the beneficiary’s interest with interest added thereto, and if a bona fide beneficiary loses his/her interest, he/she shall be deemed the beneficiary in bad faith from the time the lawsuit was brought. In such cases, “when a lawsuit is brought” means when a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment is pending, i.e., when a duplicate of the complaint is served on the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da119481, Feb. 13, 2014). It is reasonable to view that the same applies to cases where the amount of the claim was extended after the lawsuit

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) On June 25, 2010, the Plaintiffs submitted the instant complaint claiming the return of unjust enrichment to the court of first instance, and a duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on July 2, 2010.

The Plaintiffs stated that the amount of unjust enrichment claimed by the Defendant is KRW 10 million as part of the total amount of the unjust enrichment claimed by the Defendant in the complaint, but expanded the amount of the claim as stated in the written application for modification of the purport of the claim as stated in March 20, 2013.

(2) The lower court recognized the Defendant as the malicious beneficiary from June 25, 2010, which was the date of the submission of the instant complaint, and determined that the Defendant was obligated to pay legal interest based on the amount calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum to the entire amount of unjust enrichment (the corresponding amount as stated in the “amount of the quoted payment of the original judgment” in attached Form 5 of the original judgment) recognized by the lower court from that date.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant shall be deemed as the malicious beneficiary with regard to the whole unlawful gains recognized by the lower court within the scope of the claim amount extended from July 2, 2010 to the Defendant’s delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant.

D. Therefore, it is justifiable that the court below made a decision to the effect that legal interest should be added from the time when the person is deemed a malicious beneficiary with respect to all unlawful gains recognized by the court below. However, the part that recognized the defendant as a malicious beneficiary from June 25, 2010, the submission date of the complaint of this case, not from July 2, 2010, which was served on the defendant, as the submission date of the complaint of this case, and determined that the defendant is obligated to pay legal interest. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period for calculating legal interest in a case where a malicious beneficiary

Ultimately, among the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the part of the lower judgment ordering the payment of statutory interest on the amount of unjust enrichment recognized by the lower court from June 25, 2010 to July 1, 2010 should be reversed. As such, the Supreme Court is sufficient to directly render a judgment, and thus, the first instance judgment corresponding to that part is revoked, and the Plaintiffs’ claim corresponding to that part is dismissed, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as above, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and sold, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Kim Gin-young