Seoul High Court-2015Na204891 ( October 27, 2016)

In subrogation of a defaulted taxpayer, a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendants

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the damage claim and the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to joint tort, or in the incomplete hearing, or in violation of

§ 750 (Definition of Unlawful Act) and Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court-2016-C-269056 ( September 13, 2018)

Korea

AA and 2

The second instance decision

Seoul High Court-2015-Na204891 ( October 27, 2016)

2018.9.13

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) deemed that there was no damage claim, unjust enrichment return claim, loan, or investment claim arising from joint tort against Defendant AA, CCC; and (b) rejected all the Plaintiff’s claim on behalf of the said Defendants by subrogation against the said Defendants seeking compensation for damages, return of unjust enrichment, loan, or return of investment amount; and (c) did not accept the claim for revocation of and restitution to the original state against Defendant DD, which has the aforementioned claim as preserved claim. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination as above is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on damage claim, return of unjust enrichment, etc. due to joint tort, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the costs of appeal are all dismissed; and