Whether the land owner has unjustly gained profit from the land rent when the land owner operated the trucking transport business using the trucking transport business registration name of the land-invested company while the land-invested company holds the name of the land-invested company while the land-invested company has terminated the contract for trucking (affirmative)

In light of the principle of equity, it is reasonable to view that the obligation of a local government-invested company to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration and the obligation of a local government-invested company to pay delinquent management fees, etc. upon the termination of a local government-invested contract is in the simultaneous performance relationship. Therefore, if the local government-invested company continues to operate a local government-invested vehicle by continuously operating the local government-invested vehicle using the freight truck registration name of the local government-invested company while the local government-invested company has a right to defense of simultaneous performance, barring any special circumstance, the local government-invested company has gained profits equivalent to the local government-invested fees stipulated in the local government-invested contract by providing the cargo transportation service using the freight truck registration name of the local government-invested company without any legal ground, and the aforementioned profits the local government-invested company has to return to the local government-invested company as unjust enrichment.

Articles 536, 543, and 741 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Yellow Transportation Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Young-he et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2002Na4183 Delivered on June 18, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

According to the facts established by the court below, at the time when the Plaintiff terminated the instant land entry contract, the Plaintiff was in arrears in paying management fees, insurance premiums, taxes and public charges, penalties, etc. as stipulated in the land entry contract, and the Plaintiff still operated the land entry vehicle under the name of the Defendant’s trucking transport business even after the termination of the land entry contract.

In light of the principle of equity, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s obligation to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration of the Defendant’s branch vehicles following the termination of the instant land entry contract and the obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s overdue management fees, etc., which is the owner of the land, are in the simultaneous performance relationship. Therefore, if the Plaintiff continued to operate the land-building vehicle using the Defendant’s registered name of freight trucking services and operated the freight trucking services during the period in which the Plaintiff possessed the ownership of the land-building vehicle with the right of defense of simultaneous performance, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the land, obtained profits equivalent to the land-building fees agreed upon under the land-building agreement by providing the cargo trucking services using the Defendant’s registered name of the freight trucking services, and such profits

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff did not obtain unjust enrichment even though the Plaintiff continued to engage in the same business as the trucking transport business under the name of the Defendant after the termination of the instant land entry contract, was erroneous by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust enrichment, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)