Requirements for establishing office management

To establish the office management, first of all, it is not clear that the office is another person's business and there is an intention to transfer the actual interest in the management for another person, and furthermore, it is not clear that the process of the office is disadvantageous to the principal or against his will.

Article 734 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Yellow-sik et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 96Na6781 delivered on May 30, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and third grounds for appeal

The court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on its evidence, and rejected the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of expenses and return of unjust enrichment by delegation from the court below in light of the records. It is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing, misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or judgment beyond the limits of the free evaluation of evidence due to violation of the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal is just a defect in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the selection of evidence or the fact-finding is inconsistent with the facts acknowledged by the court below, or that it is inconsistent with the facts acknowledged by the court below. It is not acceptable

2. On the second ground for appeal

In order to establish office management, first of all, it is necessary to say that the office work is another person's business and there is an intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of management, i.e., the intention to vest in another person, and furthermore, it is not clear that the process of such office work is disadvantageous to the principal or against his will (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da41072, 41089, Dec. 22, 1994). Therefore, a person who manages office work for another person without any obligation without such obligation shall have a office management between the other person and a third person shall not have a office management.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 filed a complaint against the non-party 2 on the above non-party 1 to whom the non-party 2 rejected the above amount of 9.5 million won from the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 was investigated, the above non-party 2 agreed to pay 20 million won as compensation for damages to the non-party 1. The non-party 2 issued two copies of the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 with the defendant's permission, and delivered the above non-party 2 with the above non-party 1 to the non-party 1 for the above non-party 2's reasons that the non-party 2 did not pay the above amount of 9.0 million won for the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's above non-party 1 to whom the above non-party 1 had been ordered to pay the above amount of 9. The non-party 2's non-party 1 to the above non-party 2's non-party 1 to the above non-party 2's appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)