In a case where a local government-invested party files a lawsuit against a local government-invested party seeking implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership against a local government-invested party on the ground of termination, etc. of the local government-invested contract, the scope of the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the local government-invested fees in relation

In light of the principle of equity, it is reasonable to view that the obligation of a local government-invested company to implement the procedure 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 simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, if a local government-invested company continues to operate a local government-invested vehicle with a right of defense of simultaneous performance while a local government-invested company holds the title of ownership of a local government-invested vehicle, and has operated the freight truck by continuously operating the local government-invested vehicle using the title of registration of the freight truck of the local government-invested company, barring any special circumstance, the local government-invested company has gained profits equivalent to the local government-invested fee agreed upon by providing the cargo transport service using the title of registration of the local government-invested company-invested company's trucking service without any legal ground. Such profits acquired by the local government-invested company shall be returned to the local government-invested company as unjust gains, and an obligation of the local government-invested company to pay the transfer of ownership over the local government-invested vehicle.

Articles 536 and 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da37136 Decided November 28, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 50) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da30072 Decided September 7, 2007

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Busan District Court Decision 2009Na1266 Decided August 13, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the principle of equity, it is reasonable to view that the obligation of a land owner company to carry out the procedures for registration of transfer of ownership and the obligation to pay management fees, etc. overduely accrued to the land owner company following the termination of the land ownership agreement is in the simultaneous performance relationship. Therefore, if the land owner company continues to carry out the freight trucking services by using the registered name of the land owner company while the land owner company has a right to defense of simultaneous performance, it shall be deemed that the land owner company has gained profits equivalent to the land ownership charges stipulated in the land ownership agreement by providing the cargo trucking services under the registered name of the land owner company, barring any special circumstance. Such profits obtained by the land owner company should be returned to the land owner company as unjust enrichment from the date of the entry into the land ownership transfer agreement to the date of the entry into the new land ownership transfer agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da37136, Nov. 28, 2003).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of return of unjust enrichment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's defense that the plaintiff has an obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to management expenses or ordinary usage fees of KRW 50,000 per month and the obligation to simultaneously implement the transfer of ownership as to the second automobile of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff agreed to pay the second automobile of this case to the defendant the management expenses or ordinary usage fees of KRW 50,00 per month separately from the first automobile of this case

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the defendant's obligation to return operating losses or unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 7.5 million and the obligation to simultaneously implement the procedure of registration of transfer of ownership as to each of the motor vehicles of this case, even if the number of the motor vehicles permitted for trucking transport business has decreased to that degree due to the implementation of the procedure of registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff, since it is inevitable due to the amendment of the law related to trucking transport business, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff infringed the defendant's right to permit trucking transport business,

In light of relevant laws and records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

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 Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)