claim for the return that only claims the ownership of the land provided due to an illegal cause;

Even if there are illegal causes for benefits, it is valid to exercise the right to claim the property by ownership when there is ownership in the benefits provider.

Article 708 of the former Civil Code

Korean Civil Aviation Organization

Edification

Seoul High Court Decision 59No350 delivered on November 6, 1959, decided November 6, 1959

Even if there exists an illegal cause for the original payment, the payment cannot be deemed to have actually been made objective or there is no legal reason, so the payment is eventually caused by the legal cause and the beneficiary may always claim the return of unjust enrichment. However, if the right to claim the return is recognized, the claimant's claim should be based on his illegal cause and it is contrary to the sense of justice because Article 708 of the Residents' Act provides that a person who has provided payment for an illegal cause shall not claim the return of the payment, and therefore, the purport of the provision is that the illegal act shall not be protected. Thus, it is nothing more than denying the right to claim the return of the unjust benefit, and it cannot be said that a provision restricting the exercise of the right to claim the return of another claim by the beneficiary is a provision restricting the exercise of the right to claim the return of the original benefit, and therefore, it is unreasonable to exercise the right to claim the return of the property by the beneficiary if he exercises his ownership only on the real property, and the plaintiff's claim for the return of the property can not be accepted by the judgment of the plaintiff and the non-party.

Justices Lee In-ok (Presiding Justice)