[1] In a case where a party to a contract directly provides a third party with a different contractual relationship by shortening the process of performance through a direction of the contracting party, etc., whether a claim for return of unjust enrichment may be filed against the third party (negative)

[2] The case holding that Eul et al. cannot claim restitution or claim restitution of unjust enrichment against Eul et al., in case where Gap et al. transferred the sale price bonds to Byung company according to the sale management trust contract and agency contract concluded with Eul et al., and Eul et al. paid the sale price to Byung company as a whole Eul's account with Eul et al., and Eul et al. sought restitution of unjust enrichment due to cancellation of the sale contract or cancellation of the sale contract

[1] A party to a contract may not claim a return of unjust enrichment against a third party on the ground that the party to the contract received a payment from the third party without any legal ground, since the payment was made to the other party as well as the payment to the third party by the other party of the contract through the reduction of the performance process through the instruction of the other party to the contract (the case where the payment was made in a fraudulent relationship). In such a case, a party to the contract may claim a return of unjust enrichment against a third party on the ground that the party to the contract received a payment from the third party without any legal ground. In such a case, if a party to the contract is able to claim a return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the other party to the contract received a payment from the third party, such as invalidation, etc. of the legal relationship between the party to the contract and the other party to the contract, which made a payment, the risk burden under the contract under its own responsibility is transferred to the third party, thereby violating the principle of contract law, and is unjust

[2] In a case where Gap corporation transferred the sale price bonds to Byung company according to the sale management trust contract and agency contract concluded with Byung company at the time of concluding the sale contract with Eul company, and Eul et al. paid the sale price to Byung company's account with Eul et al., and Eul et al. demanded Eul et al. to pay the sale price paid due to restitution of unjust enrichment due to cancellation of the sale contract or cancellation of the sale contract with Eul et al., the case holding that Eul et al.'s deposit of the sale price to Byung company's account under the sale contract constitutes the so-called "short payment", and in such a case, Eul et al. received the sale price properly as payment according to the sale management trust contract and agency contract with Eul company's payment with Eul et al., and thus Eul et al. cannot claim restitution or return of unjust enrichment on the ground

[1] Article 741 of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 548 and 741 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da46730 Decided December 26, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 207) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46278 Decided September 11, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1330) Supreme Court Decision 2014Da77956 Decided April 23, 2015

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Choi Woo-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Liice Spanish Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Im-eng et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na82454 decided May 30, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on Defendant Haice Spanish Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with respect to the part of Defendant Loice Spanish Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Lopanish”), among the judgment below, but did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, and the appellate brief does not state the grounds for appeal in relation thereto.

2. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant KB real estate trust company

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

1) A party to a contract may not request a return of unjust enrichment against a third party on the ground that the party to the contract received payment from the third party without any legal ground, since the payment was made to the other party as well as the payment from the other party to the contract by means of the other party’s instructions, etc. In such a case, a party to the contract may request a return of unjust enrichment against the third party on the ground that the party to the contract received payment from the third party without any legal ground. In such a case, if a party to the contract is able to request a return of unjust enrichment directly on the ground that the other party to the contract becomes able to transfer the risk burden under the contract to the third party under its own responsibility, thereby violating the principle of contract law, and the third party’s right to defense against the other party to the contract is unjust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da46375, Dec. 26, 2003; 201Da4637475, Apr. 27, 2001).

2) As to the primary claim, the lower court rejected all of the Plaintiffs’ primary claims on the following grounds: (a) even though Defendant Spain has a contractual obligation to provide the instant commercial building by establishing basic facilities to function as the fishery products distribution center under each of the instant sales contract; (b) the Plaintiffs failed to perform this contractual obligation; (c) there is no basic facilities of the instant commercial building; (d) the Plaintiffs could not achieve the original purpose of the sales contract; and (e) there is no structural and functional defect as a fishery products distribution center in the instant commercial building; and (e) there is insufficient evidence to find that there is a structural and functional defect in the instant commercial building; and (b) Defendant LuxembourgS is able to use the parking lot part of the instant commercial building as an exclusive parking lot for the first floor; and (c) even if the agreement was concluded that the Plaintiffs installed storage, auction place, business facilities, etc. for the first floor commercial building as an incidental debt to each of the instant sales contract, the agreement is merely impossible for the Plaintiffs to cancel each of

Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that, upon the cancellation of the instant sales contract and retroactively becomes null and void due to the cancellation of the contract, the Plaintiff’s payment of each of the instant sales contracts to Defendant KB Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant KB Trust”) was transferred to Defendant KB Trust Co., Ltd. at the time of entering into each of the instant sales contracts with the Plaintiffs, and that the Plaintiffs consented to the payment of each of the instant sales prices to Defendant KB Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant KB Trust”), and that all of the instant sales prices was paid to Defendant KB Trust Account. The lower court determined that each of the instant sales contracts to the effect that, upon the transfer of each of the instant sales price claims to Defendant KB Trust Co., Ltd., the obligor and transferee, the direct claim and liability relationship was established between the Defendant KB Trust and the transferee, and that the exercise of the purchase price claim to Defendant KB Trust’s acquisition of each of the instant sales contracts is not for its own interest.

3) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs deposited the sales price into the account in the name of Defendant K non-trust in accordance with each of the instant sales contracts constitutes so-called “short payment”. In such a case, Defendant K non-trust duly received the sales price as repayment pursuant to the instant sales management trust and agency contract with Defendant K non-trust, and thus, the Plaintiffs cannot claim restitution or claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiffs received payment against Defendant K non-trust without any legal cause.

As to the primary claim, the lower court determined that Defendant Liice did not bear an obligation to install basic facilities necessary to enable Defendant Liice to function as a fishery products distribution center, or violated such an obligation, and that the obligation to install and repair ancillary facilities for the commercial building on the parking lot of the commercial building of this case is not appropriate to deem it as merely an incidental obligation of each of the sales contract of this case. However, the lower court’s determination that the duty to restore each of the sales contracts of this case cannot be recognized to the Defendant Kiice Trust, regardless of such determination, is justifiable. Accordingly, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the primary claim, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, although the lower court erred by partially accepting the first preliminary claim solely based on its stated reasoning, it cannot be sentenced to the Plaintiffs’ judgment of dismissal that is more unfavorable to the Plaintiffs in light of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the instant case in which only the Plaintiffs appealed, and thus, the lower court’s judgment as to this part has no choice but to be maintained. The Supreme Court Decision 2000Da22850 Decided January 24, 2003 cited by the lower court is different from the instant case, and thus, cannot

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The court below rejected all of this part of the claim on the ground that Defendant K non-trust was not liable for damages to the Plaintiffs even if Defendant K non-trust breached its duty of care as a good manager under the agency contract of this case and the sales management trust contract of this case, and there is no evidence to find that Defendant K non-trust breached its duty of care as a good manager under the agency contract of this case and sales management trust contract of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

3. Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)