[1] In a case where the performance under the contract becomes the benefit of a third party as well as the other party to the contract, whether the party who provided the benefit can claim a return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party (negative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap company's cargo driver supplied considerable amount of oil to Gap company's cargo transportation services while driving the cargo vehicle owned by Gap company, and acquired it through deception despite the lack of intent or ability to pay the price at the oil station operated by Eul, which is not the designated oil station of Gap company, and then did not pay the oil price, Eul company's cargo transportation services and did not pay the oil price, Eul company's

[1] In a case where the performance of a contract becomes the benefit of a third party as well as the other party to the contract, if the other party to the contract who has performed the contract can claim the return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party in addition to claiming the counter-performance of the contract, it would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law by imposing the risk burden under the contract under his/her own responsibility on the third party. In addition, it would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law. In addition, the party who has performed the contract would be given preferential treatment compared to the general creditors of the other party to the contract, which is the creditor, thereby impairing the interests of the general creditor, and the third party who has violated the right of defense, etc. against the other party to the contract. In such a case, the party who performed the contract cannot

[2] In a case where Gap company's cargo driver supplied considerable amount of oil to Gap company's cargo transportation services while driving the cargo vehicle owned by Gap company while acquiring the cargo vehicle, and acquired it with no intent or ability to pay the price at the oil station operated by Eul, not the designated oil station of Gap company, and did not pay the price for the oil, the case holding that Eul company cannot claim a return of unjust enrichment directly against Gap company, not the party to the contract, even if the above oil was used for the cargo transportation services of Gap company and became beneficial to Gap company

[1] Article 741 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 741 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da66564, 66571 decided Aug. 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2174) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da4976 decided Apr. 15, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 740)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Jyang Logistics Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Future, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2009Na3395 decided December 24, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the adopted evidence, acknowledged that the non-party, who is a cargo driver of the defendant company, was supplied with an amount equivalent to KRW 29,812,207 at the 17,963liter market price via the plaintiff and used it for the defendant's cargo transportation services although he did not have the intent or ability to pay the price at the 17,963liter market price in the 17,963liter operated by the plaintiff while driving the cargo vehicle owned by the defendant, and used it for the defendant's cargo transportation services, and that the amount of the oil has not yet been paid to the plaintiff. The defendant obtained profits equivalent to the above amount of the oil price without any legal ground,

In cases where the performance of a contract becomes the benefit of a third party as well as the other party to the contract, if the other party to the contract who has performed the contract can claim the return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party in addition to claiming the counter-performance of the contract, it would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law by transferring the risk burden under the contract under his/her own responsibility to the third party. In addition, it would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law. A contracting party, which is the creditor, receives preferential treatment compared to the general creditor of the other party to the contract, thereby impairing the interests of the general creditor. A third party, which is the beneficiary, infringes on the other party to the contract, and thus is unreasonable. In such a case, the contracting party who has performed the contractual benefit cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party, who is the party to the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Da6564, 66571, Aug. 23, 2002; 204Da4976, Apr. 15, 2).

In light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff who supplied transit to the Nonparty in this case was in the interest of the Defendant by using the Defendant’s cargo transportation services, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff could not claim a return of unjust enrichment directly against the Defendant, not a contracting party.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining 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 Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)