Korea

Defendant

April 15, 2015

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 Ghana591429 Decided November 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Claim: 304,120 won and damages for delay

The purport of appeal: To seek judgment such as cancellation of judgment of the court of first instance and purport of appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

On July 1, 200, the Plaintiff purchased LPG from around July 1, 200 to a credit card, debit card, or credit card or debit card (hereinafter referred to as "welfare card, etc. for disabled persons") of a designated guardian of disabled persons (hereinafter referred to as "welfare card, etc.") attached to the welfare card for disabled persons from around July 1, 200, pursuant to the guidelines prepared by the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, it is possible for a credit card company to purchase it at a pre-tax price. However, with respect to the portion of tax revenue, the Plaintiff has implemented the LPG purchase cost discount policy (hereinafter referred to as "the support policy of this case") for automobiles

The guidance on welfare projects for persons with disabilities provides that if a person who is issued a guardian card for persons with disabilities separates the disabled from the household, the LPG discount support shall be suspended.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 to 6, the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant received LPG discounts equivalent to KRW 304,120 from the Plaintiff on March 18, 2008 to August 29, 2009 by using the guardian card for the disabled, on 32 occasions. However, the Defendant was not subject to discount since it was separated between the disabled and the household. Therefore, the Defendant should return 304,120 won to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and the Plaintiff did not knowingly provide the said discount. Thus, the provision on non-payment under Article 742 of the Civil Act cannot be applicable to this case.

(b) Markets:

The instant support policy is based on the administrative guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Welfare under Article 39(1)1 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and the Ministry concerned. As such, the legal relationship on the provision of benefits or restitution thereof cannot be determined simply on private law relations. In particular, given that the benefit of discount support received by the disabled under the instant support policy is a social security right based on the right to live a decent Life under Article 34 of the Constitution and the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, etc., the purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes (in this case, the legislative purport of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities) is not only the existence and content of the provision on redemption, but also the existence and content of the provision on redemption, whether the parties were responsible for intentional or gross negligence with respect to the supply and demand of such benefits, the monetary amount of such benefits, the interval between the payment date and the date of the request for redemption, the specific details of the public interest needs to be achieved by recovering the erroneously paid amount, and the degree and degree of disadvantage suffered by the parties as a result thereof, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du132014.).

Article 51(1)3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that welfare benefits, such as educational expenses for children supported by persons with disabilities, disability allowances, allowance for children with disabilities, and allowance for protection, shall be recovered in whole or in part from the recipients of welfare benefits, provided that welfare benefits shall be recovered in cases where such welfare benefits have not been paid. However, welfare benefits under Article 39(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which served as the basis for the instant support policy, are excluded from the application of the aforementioned recovery provisions.

The guidance on welfare programs for persons with disabilities is difficult to expect that a person who is issued a guardian card for persons with disabilities will be aware of such contents as a matter of course, unless he/she specifically notifies the details of such provision because it is essentially internal business regulations of an administrative agency regardless of whether it is a law or not.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was receiving the existing discount support benefits by intention or gross negligence despite being aware that the Defendant was not a person eligible for support. In particular, the Defendant appears to have been protected by the same household as the Nonparty, who is a disabled person for a considerable period of time, and the Defendant’s temporary separation of households and thereafter constitutes the same household thereafter, it cannot be readily concluded that the household was actually separated and severed solely on the resident registration.

According to the guidance on welfare programs for persons with disabilities, the plaintiff's granting discount support benefits to the defendant who is not a person eligible for support is caused by reasons attributable to the plaintiff, such as the cooperation of related agencies' work

According to the instant support policy, the form of payment to the beneficiary is not a direct monetary payment such as the payment of allowances, but a beneficiary indirectly enjoys the benefits to purchase the LPG at a price lower than the market price. Therefore, there seems to be a considerable probability of using the benefits received by the beneficiary for other purposes. In fact, the total amount of discount support benefits received by the Defendant, who purchased LPG over about 32 times in total for about 1 year and 5 months, is merely 304,120 won, and the monetary amount of benefits is not so significant.

The Defendant’s period of separation of households is merely “from March 18, 2008 to August 29, 2009,” which is part of the “from March 18, 2008 to July 7, 2008,” which is the period during which the Plaintiff seeks the return, and there is no evidence suggesting that the amount of subsidies paid during the period of separation of households is equal to the amount of subsidies paid during the period of separation of households.

On the other hand, in such a case, if the Plaintiff did not prepare a procedure for recovery under the underlying laws and regulations and opened a way to receive a refund in cash directly from the Defendant by a civil claim, the degree of infringement or disadvantage on the protection of trust and the stability of legal life suffered by the Defendant, compared to the public interest that can be achieved through this process, is considerably large.

As seen earlier, taking into account the legal basis and circumstances leading the Plaintiff to provide discount support benefits to the Defendant under the instant support policy, the lack of the statutory provisions on restitution of such benefits, the relationship attributable to the cause or the legitimate trust of the beneficiary to be protected in the beneficial administrative action, etc., the Plaintiff’s claim for return of discount support benefits equivalent to KRW 304,120 received by the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act shall not be allowed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for return shall not be accepted without further examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion (no repayment of bad faith).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Park Jin-young (Presiding Judge)

1) Article 39(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that “The State and local governments, and other public organizations shall take necessary support measures, such as reduction or exemption of taxes, etc., to allow persons with disabilities to conveniently use cars, etc. as means of mobility and to reduce economic burdens.”

2) Article 1 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that “The purpose of this Act is to clarify the responsibilities of the State, local governments, etc. to guarantee the lives and rights of persons with disabilities as human beings, to prevent occurrence of disabilities and to comprehensively implement measures for welfare of persons with disabilities by prescribing projects for medical treatment, education, vocational rehabilitation, living environment improvement, etc., and to contribute to social integration by promoting the welfare of persons with disabilities and the participation of social activities by prescribing necessary matters concerning the self-reliance, protection of persons with disabilities