(영문) 대법원 2016.4.12.선고 2015다251973 판결

1. Article 35(1) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (wholly amended by Act No. 8367 of Apr. 11, 2007) provides that necessary support measures, such as tax reduction and exemption for convenience appearance and economic burden reduction for the use of cars, etc., which are mobile means by persons with disabilities shall be established. The Ministry of Health and Welfare from July 1, 2001, with a disability car sign attached, and with a disability car sign registered in the name of the disabled person or his/her family, purchased LPG by means of a welfare card or his/her guardian card, as the owner of the car for persons with disabilities registered in the name of the disabled person or his/her family, carried out the business of subsidizing the amount of taxes out of the payment of the LPG purchase price. According to the above guidelines of the business (hereinafter referred to as the “instant guidelines”), one of the spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, the spouse of lineal descendant, lineal descendant or sibling, and one of the siblings shall receive the above support after receiving the guardian card upon application.

Meanwhile, Article 35(2) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall issue a mark identifying the disabled person's car, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "vehicle mark for persons with disabilities") for the convenience of support related to the use of the disabled person's car, etc., and each item of Article 23 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 424 of Dec. 28, 2007) is subject to the issuance of a disabled car sign, which is registered in accordance with the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities or the disabled person's address registered in accordance with the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and the resident registration card, and

In full view of the aforementioned statutes and the purport of the instant guidelines, where a family member of a disabled person was issued a disabled person car sign, but thereafter, did not reside together with the disabled person and the resident registration card, and became ineligible for support of the business, it shall be deemed that he/she received benefits and lost the eligibility or authority to hold them. Nevertheless, if a family member of a disabled person continued to use the guardian card and received the amount equivalent to the discount subsidy, the amount of money in the name of the discount subsidy received during the pertinent period shall be returned to unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da218075, Jan. 14, 2016).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for return on the ground that the Plaintiff constituted unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act regarding the Plaintiff’s 230,400 won at discount support hedge, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for return constituted unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act, considering the following factors: (a) lack of the legal basis and details of providing discount support benefits under the instant support policy; and (b) lack of the statutory provisions on restitution; and (c) legitimate trust of beneficiaries

3. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following facts.

(1) The Defendant, as a child of the disabled person B, has obtained and used a guardian card from the Plaintiff with the resident registration in Songpa-gu Seoul apartment C, 506 dong 1101.

(2) On April 11, 2006, the defendant transferred to "Seoul Seodaemun-gu Dolle 101", and the resident registration was separated from B and the resident registration was transferred to "Seoul Songpa-gu 506 Dong 1101" on August 23, 2007.

(3) From April 11, 2006 to May 19, 2007, the Defendant received discount support of 230,400 won in total on 28 occasions using a guardian card.

B. In light of the above circumstances in light of the Supreme Court precedents, since the Defendant received an amount equivalent to the discount subsidy using the guardian card even though it was separated from B and household units and did not belong to the above business, the Defendant should return the amount under the name of the discount subsidy received during the period of separation of household to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the Supreme Court precedents as stipulated in Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.