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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides for the extinctive prescription of five years shall apply to the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, even in cases where the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment is sought based on a contract that is a commercial activity. In light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the claim, the cause thereof, the status of the parties, and the relationship, etc., where it is necessary to promptly resolve the legal relationship to the same extent as that of the commercial transaction relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da47825, Jun. 14, 2002; 2006Da63150, May 31, 2007). However, barring any special circumstance, Article 64 of the Commercial Act does not apply to cases where the content of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment is not seeking the return of benefit itself, or where it is not deemed necessary to promptly resolve the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ right to claim the return of unjust enrichment based on the said right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim expired by five years. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the extinctive prescription, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.