(a) The case affirming a claim for return of unjust enrichment by an insurance company in the light of the invalidity of the insurance contract where the party to the contract performs a legal act by gathering the name of another person;

A. In a case where a party to a contract has done a juristic act using another person’s name at will, if the intent of the actor and the other party as to who is the party to the contract is consistent, the act of the actor or the nominal person shall be decided as the act of the actor in accordance with the consistent intent. However, if it is impossible to determine the consistent intent, the other party shall be determined by how to understand the person among the actor and the nominal owner as the party to the contract in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract, if it is reasonable

(b) The case affirming a claim for return of unjust enrichment by an insurance company on the ground that the insurance contract becomes null and void, where Party A concludes a guarantee insurance contract with the insurance company and redeems the money borrowed in the name of B from the financial institution using the insurance policy, and the insurance company pays the insurance money;

(b)Article 105, Article 108, Article 109, paragraph 1(b) of the Civil Code;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 94Da4912 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3584 delivered on July 8, 1980). Supreme Court Decision 80Da639 delivered on July 8, 1980 (Gong1980, 1300) 93Da14912 delivered on October 222, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3153). (B) Supreme Court Decision 93Da3632 delivered on March 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1551)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Exclusive-hee)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na23632 delivered on October 11, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a party to a contract has done a juristic act using another's name at will, if the intention of the actor and the other party to the contract coincide with each other, the act of the actor or the nominal person shall be determined as the act of the nominal person according to the consistent intention. However, if it is impossible to determine the consistent intention, the other party shall be determined by whether to understand the person among the actor and the nominal owner as the contracting party if he is a reasonable human being based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, contents, purpose, and circumstances of the contract, etc., and then whether the contract has been concluded or not (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4912 delivered on September 29, 195).

According to the facts established by the court below, in this case, the non-party 1 entered into the guarantee insurance contract of this case with the plaintiff by gathering the name of each non-party above and forging relevant documents. Thus, the plaintiff knew only that the contract was concluded with each of the above non-party, and there is no room to deem that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 agreed to the contract of this case to have the non-party 1 as a party to the contract of this case. In addition, according to the records, the insurance contract of this case can be seen as a contract that guarantees the obligation to return the principal and interest of this case at the time of original adjudication to be received from the defendant. Thus, it shall be deemed as an important factor in determining whether the credit status of the policyholder of this case as the debtor was entered into or not, and the non-party 1 took advantage of a large amount of money and took out only a small amount of loan, and the plaintiff subscribed to the insurance contract of this case under his name, and the plaintiff concluded the insurance contract of this case with each of the above non-party as the party to the contract of this case.

Therefore, the parties to the insurance contract of this case shall be deemed to be the above non-party who is indicated as the policyholder, not the non-party 1, and since the non-party 1 voluntarily concluded the above non-party's name without any authority, even if the legal principles on delegation of authority can be applied mutatis mutandis, it cannot be effective as a content of the contract unless it is ratified by the above non-party. Therefore, the defendant's receipt of the insurance money of this case from the plaintiff on the ground that the non-party 1 did not perform his obligation to repay the borrowed money, is ultimately an act of receiving the insurance money based on an insurance contract with no validity, and thus, it shall be deemed to have obtained benefits without any legal ground and caused damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff. Although the judgment of the court below was somewhat insufficient at the time of the reasoning of the judgment below, it is just in its conclusion that the court below decided that the defendant was liable to return the above insurance money received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation of declaration of intent under guarantee

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)