[1] The scope of a seizure order against a claim

[2] The case holding that the effect of the attachment and assignment order of the above claim does not extend to the insurance benefit claim due to the medical treatment at the hospital, in case where the obligee Byung received an order for the attachment and assignment of the insurance benefit claim against the National Health Insurance Corporation (the National Health Insurance Corporation), and where the obligee Byung received an order for the attachment and assignment of the claim for insurance benefits from the medical treatment at the hospital where the obligee Byung established a new hospital after being declared bankrupt and exempted from immunity and performed medical treatment

[3] Whether it constitutes a case where a creditor, even if a creditor has confirmed a non-authorized person’s receipt of repayment after the fact, constitutes “the creditor has received the benefit” under Article 472 of the Civil Act (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, in a case where Gap's act of repayment was effective against Eul and Gap's claim for insurance benefits became extinct due to its repayment, in a case where Gap filed a lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment of Eul's claim for the return of unjust enrichment of Eul, on the premise that Gap's claim for insurance benefits arising from the above credit seizure and assignment order had the effect of the above credit seizure and assignment order on Byung's claim for insurance benefits due to medical treatment at the fixed hospital, and Gap filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the amount it received from Byung as unjust enrichment, and the mediation was formed with the waiver of the claim for return of unjust enrichment of Eul's claim for insurance benefits

[1] An order of seizure against a claim takes effect within the scope of the claim that is its object. Thus, even if a seizure against a future claim is permitted, the seizure cannot affect the claim arising from a new cause that is not identical to the seized claim.

[2] The case holding that in case where the obligee Byung received an order for the attachment and assignment of insurance benefit claim against the National Health Insurance Corporation (“A”) while operating the hospital Eul, in which the obligee Byung received an order for the attachment and assignment of the insurance benefit claim against the National Health Insurance Corporation, and thereafter, the obligee Byung established a new hospital and performed medical treatment after being declared bankrupt and immunity, and thus, the claim, which is the object of the above order for attachment and assignment and assignment, is not deemed to have been specified as the insurance benefit claim related to the medical treatment in the hospital “B”, and it is difficult to view that the business identity is recognized between the hospital and the hospital “B,” and thus, the effect of the order for attachment and assignment of claims does not extend to the insurance benefit claim due to medical treatment at the newly established hospital

[3] Article 472 of the Civil Act provides that performance with respect to a person who has no authority to receive repayment in order to avoid the formation of legal relations as to the return of unnecessary chain unjust enrichment shall be effective to the extent that the obligee gains profit. Here, in the case of “a creditor’s profit” as referred to in this context, the recipient of performance shall not only deliver the performance he received to the true creditor, but also include cases where the receipt of performance by a person without authority is recognized as having substantial relations which may be attributable to the obligee’s profit, such as when the obligee subsequently ratified the receipt of performance by the person without authority.

[4] In a case where Gap was operating Eul hospital, Eul received an order of seizure and assignment of the claim for insurance benefits which Eul received from the National Health Insurance Corporation. After being declared bankrupt and a decision of immunity was rendered, Gap paid part of the medical care benefit expenses to Byung on the premise that the effect of the above claim seizure and assignment order was also on the claim for insurance benefits arising from medical treatment at a fixed hospital, and Gap filed a lawsuit claiming return of the money which Eul received from Byung as unjust enrichment, but the conciliation was formed with the waiver of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the case held that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, since Eul's declaration of waiver includes the purpose of confirming the effect of receiving reimbursement by Byung, since Eul's genuine creditor of the money repaid from the Corporation was deemed as one of his own claims and returning it as unjust enrichment and responded to the conciliation of the contents of waiver of the claim for return, and thus Gap's act of repayment also becomes effective against Gap, and thus, Gap's claim for insurance benefits becomes extinguished.

[1] Article 223 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 223 and 229 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 472 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 472 of the Civil Act, Articles 223 and 229 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da62640 decided Dec. 24, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 349)

Plaintiff

National Health Insurance Corporation (Attorney Ansan-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na32965 Decided March 25, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the attachment and assignment order of claims

Inasmuch as an order of seizure against a claim takes effect within the scope of the claim that has become an object of seizure, even in cases where seizure against a future claim is permitted, seizure cannot affect any claim arising from a new cause that is not identical to the claim subject to seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da62640, Dec. 24, 2001, etc.).

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and acknowledged that the plaintiff's insurance benefit claim claim against the defendant was generated by opening the hospital with the trade name of "Bejin-gun (hereinafter omitted)" and conducting medical treatment at the request of the non-party, who is the creditor of the non-party (hereinafter referred to as "Bejin-gun (hereinafter referred to as "Beongjin-gun") under the order of seizure and assignment of claim for insurance benefit claim amounting to 77,96,638 won from among the insurance benefit claim claims that the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Bejin-gun-gun") 130-8, upon the request of the non-party, and the above order became final and conclusive. After the plaintiff was declared bankrupt and the decision of exemption became final and conclusive, the court below determined that the above attachment and assignment order upon request of the non-party did not affect the insurance benefit claim due to the medical treatment and treatment newly established by the plaintiff and the decision of exemption from the original dental clinic.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if the facts acknowledged by the court below were to be established, the claim subject to the seizure and assignment order of this case cannot be deemed to have been specified as the insurance benefit claim related to the diagnosis and treatment in Ulsan dental clinic, and it is difficult to view that the business identity is recognized between the original dental clinic and the Ulsan dental clinic. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Nonparty’s effect of the seizure and assignment order of the above claim does not extend to the insurance benefit claim sought by the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of an attachment and assignment order, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the good faith principle

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for conciliation of this case on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant of this case cannot be allowed as abuse of right against the above conciliation. The plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be allowed as abuse of right against the above conciliation date, even if the conciliation is concluded, it is not sufficient to recognize that the non-party was finally holding the above 13,372,780 won on the conciliation date, or that the plaintiff renounced the claim of this case against the defendant of this case against the defendant, because the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant of this case and the non-party were not related to the same legal relationship, so it is not necessary to confirm the unity and thus it is not compatible with the above legal relationship.

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below.

Article 472 of the Civil Act provides that payment to a person who has no authority to receive payment in order to avoid the formation of a legal relationship for the return of unnecessary chain unjust enrichment shall be effective to the extent that the obligee has received any benefit. In the case of “a creditor who has received any benefit” as referred to in this context, the recipient of the performance shall not only deliver the payment that the true creditor has received to the obligor, but also include cases where the receipt of payment by the person without authority is deemed as having substantial relations that may be attributed to the obligee’s interest, such as when the obligee confirmed the receipt after the fact.

As recognized by the court below in this case, if the plaintiff asserted that he was paid to the non-party by the defendant as the genuine creditor of KRW 13,372,780, who was repaid by the defendant, was entitled to return the above money as unjust enrichment, and the plaintiff responded to the mediation of the contents giving up his right to claim the return, it is reasonable to deem that the declaration of renunciation includes the purport of ratification of the effect of receiving the repayment by the non-party. Accordingly, the defendant's act of repayment is effective against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's claim for insurance

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this part solely for the reasons indicated in its reasoning, which led to the point of view as to whether the Plaintiff’s claim in this case constitutes an abuse of the right of action. In so doing, it is reasonable to view that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the effect of receiving payment by an unauthorized person, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal that denying the validity of payment constitutes abuse of the right of action or is not permissible under the good faith principle against the purpose of mediation

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)