Plaintiff (Attorney Kang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 1, 2007

Jeju District Court Decision 2005Gahap3164 Decided October 12, 2006

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Based on the selective claim regarding the management of affairs added at the trial, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 131,862,202 with 5% per annum from May 16, 2007 to July 13, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining selective claims regarding administrative affairs management are dismissed.

4. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 131,862,202 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the day when the complaint was served to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff shall be entitled to claim waste disposal expenses due to the initial payment agreement or the obligation under the Wastes Control Act, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to selective addition of the claim for administrative affairs or unjust enrichment at the trial).

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2003, the Korea National Housing Corporation contracted the construction work of the 1st Section of the Jeju-style Apartment Complex (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among the new apartment construction works implemented in Jeju-dong Nowon-gu, Jeju-gu, and the non-party 1 corporation on March 10, 2003. On April 24, 2003, the Korea National Housing Corporation separately contracted the construction work of the 5,7640,000 won to the Plaintiff (it is a company established for the purpose of interim waste disposal business, etc.) for the construction work of the instant case.

B. From May 6, 2003 to February 10, 2005, the Plaintiff collected and transported and disposed of construction waste, such as waste concrete, waste asphalt, mixed waste, etc. discharged from the construction site of this case from May 6, 2003 to February 10, 2005, and all of the disposal costs is KRW 184,064,202. The Plaintiff out of the disposal costs from the Korea National Housing Corporation.

Only 200 won was paid.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant completed all of the instant construction work on or around December 2004, and received the payment for the last completion on or around June 2005, in full.

【In the absence of dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

A. On September 2004, Nonparty 2, the director in charge of the Defendant, promised to pay the Defendant the waste disposal cost not paid by the Korea National Housing Corporation as the Plaintiff discontinued construction waste disposal on the grounds that construction waste disposal occurred in excess of the contract amount with the Korea National Housing Corporation. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the waste disposal cost that the Plaintiff seeks.

B. Since the Defendant is obligated to dispose of wastes as an industrial waste discharger under Article 25 of the Wastes Control Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the waste disposal cost that the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Plaintiff who performed the waste disposal work

C. While performing the instant construction project, the Defendant erroneously managed construction waste generated at the construction site and caused excessive volume of construction waste, and the Plaintiff did not receive some construction waste disposal costs even after disposing of all of the construction waste. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the cost of waste disposal that the Plaintiff has not received from the Korea National Housing Corporation, in accordance with the legal principles of unjust enrichment or administrative management (management).

3. Determination

First of all, it is considered that claims for waste disposal costs are based on selective administrative management of administrative affairs added in the trial.

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) The Korea National Housing Corporation has contracted construction waste disposal services to the Plaintiff separately from the instant construction project pursuant to Article 4 of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 6912 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 128 of August 11, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply) to ensure the proper disposal of construction waste by paying the construction waste disposal business entity a sufficient disposal cost.

(2) On February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff, under a contract with the Korea National Housing Corporation, was expected to incur construction waste in excess of the original contract amount, which was disposing of the construction waste generated at the construction site of this case, demanded the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Defendant to take measures therefor from that time. The Korea National Housing Corporation did not have any circumstance to cause any excess quantity, such as design change, and the Defendant agreed to pay the service cost for the excess quantity in consultation with the Korea National Housing Corporation.

(3) Since the Plaintiff failed to receive a definite promise to pay service charges for excess quantity from the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Defendant, the Plaintiff disposed of construction waste exceeding the original contract amount until February 10, 2005 by suspending the removal of construction waste at the construction site of this case on September 2004, but resumeing services without the Defendant’s request.

(4) Mixed waste generated at the construction site of this case exceeds 789.9t of the initial contract quantity (136.9t) between the Plaintiff and the Korea National Housing Corporation (the quantity of mixed waste generated at the site of Jeju-type apartment construction work, which is similar to the construction site of this case, exceeds 132t of the quantity of the mixed waste generated at the site of “No-type apartment 2 construction site,” the construction site of this case, total floor area, construction cost, etc.). The reason is that the Defendant’s error in waste management, thereby leaving the waste discharged by mixing with the mixed waste without separating waste concrete, finishing materials packaging site, and living waste, etc.

(5) The punununch and Article 25 of the Wastes Control Act provides that an industrial waste discharger shall dispose of wastes generated from his workplace by himself or by entrusting the disposal to a person who has obtained permission for a waste disposal business under the same Act. The Defendant entered the construction waste disposal certificate generated at the construction site of this case as “waste discharger”.

【Reasons for Recognition】 2.5 Evidence Nos. 5, 2. Evidence Nos. 2, testimony of Non-party 3 of the trial witness, inquiry of fact to the chief of the headquarters of the Korean National Housing Corporation at the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings

B. Determination

A person who performs affairs on behalf of another person without any obligation may claim reimbursement of necessary or beneficial expenses paid for the benefit of another person in accordance with Articles 734 and 739 of the Civil Act.

According to the above facts, the defendant performing the construction work of this case is obligated to dispose of construction waste generated at the construction site of this case as "waste discharger" under the Wastes Control Act and has a duty to dispose of construction waste generated at the construction site of this case (In this regard, the defendant claims that the Korea National Housing Corporation should directly dispose of the construction waste separately from the construction project of this case pursuant to the so-called Construction Project. However, the Korea National Housing Corporation is merely liable for payment of the service cost by entering into a waste disposal service contract with the plaintiff pursuant to the above separate order order, and the responsibility for managing construction waste generated at the site of this case is confirmed to be the defendant who is the contractor of the construction work of this case. This is confirmed that the Korea National Housing Corporation has a duty to dispose of construction waste in excess of the contract price of the plaintiff and the Korea National Housing Corporation through the construction specifications and site site descriptions to the defendant while awarding the construction work of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable). In addition, since the plaintiff does not receive a clear promise to pay the service cost for excess quantity from the plaintiff and the defendant's intent to dispose of construction waste.

Therefore, the defendant can be deemed to include 131,862,202 won (i.e., 184,064,202 won - 52,202, and 52,202,200 won for waste treatment expenses claimed by the plaintiff for the management of affairs, as well as expenses incurred for the management of affairs. However, if administrative affairs are performed within the scope of occupation or business of the manager who works for a fee, the manager can claim ordinary remuneration together. Thus, the manager can claim the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, on May 16, 2007 (the day following the day on which the written change in the cause of the additional claim delivered to the defendant) from July 13, 2007 (the day the judgment of this case is delivered to the defendant, when it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence of the obligation to perform, and the interest rate of 5% (the day following the day prescribed by the Civil Act) per annum 20% per annum, etc. (the interest rate per annum).

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case added at the trial of the court of appeal shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as there is no reason. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the amount, and the remaining selective claims of the plaintiff concerning the management of affairs shall be dismissed.

Judges Jeong Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)