Whether the lessee has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the lessor who is not the owner of the leased property, in case where the lessee pays the leased property from a person other than the owner and uses the leased property under the lease agreement (negative)

Even if the lessor is not the owner of the leased object, if the lessee used the leased object as stipulated in the lease agreement, the lease agreement was lawfully implemented, and the lessee does not acquire the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the lessor.

Articles 201 and 741 of the Civil Act

Issues Exchange

Korea

Suwon District Court of the first instance (87 Ghana119) Suwon District Court of the Republic of Korea (Law Firm 87 Ghana119)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 779,890 and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the day following the day when a duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on the defendant to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution (in the first instance, it is to reduce the purport of the claim).

The same shall apply to the order.

On July 10, 1957, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was made on July 10, 1957 as to the 4,152 square meters in the Dong-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si.

In using the above real estate during the above period, the plaintiff argued that the defendant gains profit from the rent of the above real estate without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered loss from the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the above real estate to the above-mentioned family council, which is the actual owner of the above real estate. Thus, first, in relation to the legal relations between the plaintiff, the defendant and the above-mentioned family council regarding the use of real estate, first, in relation to the legal relations between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant would allow the plaintiff to use the above real estate in accordance with the above lease contract with the plaintiff, and the performance of the above contract was completed lawfully, and therefore it cannot be said that the plaintiff suffered loss, and second, in relation to the above-mentioned family council and the defendant, the plaintiff and the above-mentioned owner of the above real estate shall be presumed to have suffered loss from the plaintiff's direct possession of the above real estate by the above-mentioned real estate without any legal reason, and there is no evidence to reverse the plaintiff's right to use the above real estate as the plaintiff's right to use the above real estate in good faith or the above judgment against the plaintiff's loss.

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)