Where a party to a contract directly provides a third party with a different contractual relationship with the other party upon the instruction of the other party to the contract, whether a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment may be made against the third party (negative)

Article 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2006Da46278 decided September 11, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1330)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Muri, Attorneys Lee Han-hoon et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

U.N.D. et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na35056 Decided January 11, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a party to a contract directly provides a service to a third party who has a different contractual relationship with the other party by shortening the process of performance through the instruction of the other party to the contract (if a service has been rendered in a deceptive relationship), and the payment is not only the performance to the other party to the contract, but also the performance to the third party to the other party, a party to the contract may not claim a return of unjust enrichment against the third party on the ground that the party received payment without any legal cause. In such a case, if a party to the contract can claim a return of unjust enrichment against the third party on the ground that there is a defect in the legal relationship concerning the cause of the payment to the other party to the contract, such as a defect in the legal relationship with the party to the contract that made the payment, the transfer of the risk burden under the contract under one's own responsibility would go against the principle of contract law, and the third party's right to defense against the other party to the contract is unjust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46278, Sep. 111, 2008).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff directly paid KRW 80 million out of the purchase price under the contract of this case to the defendant L&Wn Co., Ltd., which was the other party to the contract of this case, to the contract of this case, as the purchase price for the defendant L&Wn Co., Ltd., which was the purchase price for the defendant L&Wn Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff and L&Wn Co., Ltd., and payment was made between the plaintiff and L&Wn Co., Ltd., and the defendant L&C Co., Ltd., and the defendant L&D Co., Ltd., Ltd. in the so-called three-called relationship. Thus, if the plaintiff could make a direct claim for return of unjust enrichment against the above defendants, such as the defendant L&Wn Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was a third party, on the ground that the contract of this case was cancelled, the plaintiff could not make a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the above defendants.

Furthermore, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Hanol Trust did not have any independent right of defense on the ground that the Defendant Hanol Trust did not have any independent right of defense on the ground that it is in a position to assert the right of defense pursuant to the trust agreement

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to unjust enrichment in a three-dimensional relationship, incomplete hearing, and inconsistent reasoning.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different cases and are not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)