2014Da29520 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

A

B

Daejeon High Court Decision 2013Na4003 Decided April 9, 2014

June 9, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below held that the defendant was liable to return the lease deposit of this case to the non-party company 130 million won as unjust enrichment and to pay interest from the date of receiving the above money. The court below held that the plaintiff acquired the non-party company's claim for the 60 million won of the above unjust enrichment return claim and the interest claim on the 60 million won of the above unjust enrichment return claim from the non-party company.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the non-party company: (a) on January 20, 2012 for the operation of a screen golf course, leased the instant lease deposit from the non-party New Nanyang Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New Nanyang"), and paid the lease deposit of KRW 150 million, but decided to transfer the lease right to the defendant; (b) on June 22, 2012, the non-party company agreed on the said lease contract with the new Kanyang Fa and the above lease; and (c) on June 22, 2012, the remainder after deducting the unpaid rent and the management fee from the above lease deposit, the claim for the refund of the lease deposit amount of KRW 130 million from the remainder after deducting the unpaid rent and the management fee from the above lease deposit, and the defendant entered into the lease contract with the non-party company for the lease deposit of KRW 130 million from June 23, 2012 to the previous lease contract with the non-party company.

The fact that H, on February 14, 2013, paid to the non-party company the amount of KRW 130 million for the lease deposit to the non-party company (Article 2(1) of the above contract) (Article 2(3)), and H, on the same day, entered into a lease contract for the store with the new worker, and around that time, the new worker paid KRW 130 million to the Defendant.

Examining the above facts in light of the relevant legal principles, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received the refund of the lease deposit from the new Edudon upon the termination of the lease agreement concluded with the lessor on June 23, 2012, and there is no legal cause. Moreover, in order for the Defendant to have not paid the lease deposit to the non-party company to constitute unjust enrichment, the relationship between the non-party company and the Defendant related to the settlement should be established.

Nevertheless, the court below, without any explanation on the above circumstances, determined that the non-party company has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending relevant legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok

Justice Park Jong-hee

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il