In case where the depositor deposits the deposited goods in mistake or the cause for the deposit ceases to exist, whether the person who received the deposited goods under the order to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods before the depositor recovers the deposited goods bears the obligation to return the unjust enrichment to the depositor (affirmative)

When the depositor has deposited the deposited goods in mistake or when the cause of the deposited goods has ceased to exist, the depositor can recover the deposited goods, and there is no right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods from the deposited goods. In such a case, any person who received the deposited goods upon receiving an order to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods before the depositor withdraws the deposited goods from the deposited goods shall receive the deposited goods without any legal ground, and shall return the unjust enrichment to the depositor.

Article 9(2) of the Deposit Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

○○ Housing Redevelopment Association (Attorney Go Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Industrial Bank of Korea (Law Firm Spah, Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na42268 decided April 24, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal disputing the incomplete hearing

In case where a mortgagee files an application for an order of seizure and assignment of the claim for land compensation with respect to the exercise of the subrogation right, even if the claim for compensation has been transferred to another person according to the transfer or assignment order, etc. before the seizure is made, it is still possible to estimate the claim for compensation before the completion period of demand for distribution is reached in the compulsory execution procedure concerning the claim for compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da12812 delivered on September 22, 1998, etc.).

Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the court below did not examine whether the defendant had been under competition at the time of receiving the order of seizure and assignment of the claim for payment of deposit money of this case by exercising the subrogation right, is without merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal alleging a misapprehension of legal principles as to unjust enrichment

When the depositor has deposited the deposited goods in mistake or when the cause of the deposited goods has ceased to exist (see Article 9(2) of the Deposit Act), the depositor can recover the deposited goods (see Article 9(2) of the Deposit Act), and there is no right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods by the depositor. In such a case, any person who received the deposited goods upon receiving an order to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods prior to the withdrawal of the deposited goods by the depositor under the whole order to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods

According to the fact-finding of the court below, the plaintiff deposited land expropriation compensation in accordance with the adjudication of the Land Tribunal for expropriation. The plaintiff erred by designating the previous owner who is not the owner at the time of expropriation as the depositor. Meanwhile, the defendant, as the mortgagee of the real estate of this case, was paid the deposit upon the seizure and assignment order of the right to claim payment of the deposit money as the exercise of subrogation right, and thereafter, the above adjudication of expropriation has lost its effect due to the error of the above deposit, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's payment of deposit money constitutes unjust enrichment, the court below determined that the defendant's payment of deposit money does not constitute unjust enrichment on the ground that the defendant's payment of collateral security valid for the real estate of this case constitutes unjust enrichment on the ground that the defendant had a valid right to collateral security as to the real estate of this case, as long as it was a legal cause for the payment of deposit money, and that the defendant's payment of deposit money is not affected by the validity of the adjudication of expropriation or deposit between the plaintiff and the depositor. The court below determined that the defendant's payment of deposit money does not constitute unjust enrichment on the ground that the defendant's payment of collateral security at the plaintiff's expense should be settled through the return of unjust enrichment between

However, in light of the above legal principles, since the defendant received the deposit without any legal cause after receiving an order for the entire claim for payment of the deposit which does not exist due to the extinguishment of the cause of deposit or deposit, the defendant is obligated to return it to the depositor. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust enrichment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit (However, if the plaintiff, who is the project implementer, did not make an agreement or notification in accordance with the provisions such as "Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor" or the principle of good faith in the second adjudication and deposit of the real estate in this case, it is unlawful, and if the defendant suffered losses which the defendant is unable to exercise the right to preferential payment as the subrogation right, it shall be liable to compensate for such damages. Accordingly, the defendant shall set up a family defense against the obligation to return the deposit with the automatic claim, but this part

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)