In case of a contract for a third party, if an actor of an abortion becomes a tort, or if the contract itself becomes null and void, the third party may not claim damages.

Contracts with a third party, in its nature, whether the act of the deceased person itself is a tort

(1) If the promise is null and void, the third party is illegal unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

No claim for damages can be made on the grounds of acts or nonperformance.

Article 539 of the Civil Act

Republic of Korea (Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 65Na350 delivered on March 4, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first ground for appeal by the plaintiff's agent is examined.

However, as in the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendants on the ground of the non-performance of obligation, and even if the conjunctive contract becomes null and void, the plaintiff filed a claim for return of the purchase price paid at unjust enrichment. However, even if the court below erred by misunderstanding this claim due to the non-performance of rights, which led to an erroneous determination that the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the non-performance of obligation (no legal claim can be made) was made, according to the original judgment, the court below's judgment is clear that the above contract was merely made without any condition as to the farmland prior to the completion of payment. Since the above contract on distributed farmland is null and void as a matter of course, since it was concluded on behalf of the plaintiff as a third party, and even if the plaintiff expressed his intention to obtain such profit, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the above non-performance of obligation arising from the non-performance of rights. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment between ○○ University and the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment cannot be dismissed.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, the reasoning for the judgment on the reversal and return of the principal source of the lawsuit lies on the premise that the principal contract between the ○○ University Construction Association and the Defendants is valid for the sale of goods of another person, and the court below held that the contract itself was null and void due to the violation of the Farmland Reform Act even if the above contract was considered to be the sale of goods of another person, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of the court below conflicts with the legal judgment on the grounds for the reversal of the judgment on the return of the principal source of lawsuit.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, the contract for the third party is a contract that promises the abortion between the summary and the abortion to provide a certain benefit to the third party, and accordingly the third party acquires the right to claim the benefit directly against the abortion. Thus, the third party cannot claim damages due to the illegal act of the abortion, unless there are special circumstances, unless the actor becomes a tort or the contract itself is null and void. Thus, the argument is only an independent opinion, and it cannot be employed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Articles 400, 395, 384, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu