2013Da78853 Return of Unjust Enrichment

A

Appellant

W

B A.

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na58496 Decided October 2, 2013

May 29, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs shall be borne by the plaintiff successor intervenor.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. In a case where the objective meaning of the language and text stated in the disposal document is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized as well, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da26769, Nov. 11, 2010).

B. The lower court, based on the premise that the agreement between the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant Company cannot be recognized as having been reached, and further, partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor.

C. However, the above judgment below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

1) In relation to the instant undertaking that the Plaintiff prepared and executed the Defendant Company, stating that “I will not impose any civil or criminal liability on the Company with respect to the improper support and redemption of the CP,” and that I will present this undertaking to ensure that I will accept any measures by rule of the Company. Although there is a typical phrase used in the ordinary agreement that I will not impose any civil or criminal liability, it is objectively clear that the meaning of the Plaintiff’s refusal to file any civil claim against the Defendant Company is included in the said phrase. The circumstance that there was no explicit discussion on the meaning of the undertaking between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company at the time of the preparation of the undertaking, or that there was no uncertainty as to whether I will file any civil lawsuit in the future, is likely to affect the interpretation of the said undertaking in accordance with the language and text.

2) Based on the fact that the letter of undertaking contains the case number and the phrase "unfair support and redemption of the CP", the lower court determined that the civil and criminal liability that the Plaintiff did not ask the Defendant Company is limited to "purchase and redemption of corporate bills, provision of time deposits as security, and provision of a certificate of deposit," and that the loan secured by the certificate of deposit does not include up to the contents of the claim for refund of the amount of KRW 4 billion paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. However, it is difficult to present a civil claim against the Defendant Company in relation to the purchase and redemption of corporate bills, provision of time deposits as security and redemption of the certificate of deposit, and provision of a certificate of deposit. Considering the above circumstances, it is difficult to suggest the possibility of dispute regarding the amount paid by the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the claim in this case. Considering the above circumstances, the above case number or the phrase "unfair support and redemption" merely stated the facts subject to the application of the letter of deposit, and it is difficult to view the scope of the application of the letter of deposit as a commercial paper and its contents.

3) In addition, the lower court determined that, inasmuch as the Defendant Company made a statement that the Defendant Company did not incur damage to the Defendant Company from the time it requested the Plaintiff to investigate the Plaintiff, it did not appear to have had any circumstance to demand the Plaintiff to provide a written undertaking in return for the submission of the petition, and that the actual petition did not appear to have had a critical impact on the sentencing of criminal judgment. However, whether the Defendant Company required the Plaintiff to provide a written undertaking in return for the submission of the petition, or whether the petition affected the sentencing of criminal judgment is difficult to affect the interpretation of the written undertaking in accordance with the language and text. Furthermore, the lower court determined that the Defendant Company, who was a co-defendant, was formally drafted a written undertaking in the name of G based on the same fact that was written in G even if G did not repay the above loan instead of the Plaintiff, the Defendant and G did not appear to have made a formal interpretation differently from the language and text of the instant letter of undertaking. However, according to the records, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s office did not have made a written undertaking in the name of G in question.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the disposal document, on the ground that the instant promise cannot be recognized as having agreed on the part of the Plaintiff.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendant’s remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. The total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

A person shall be appointed.