Breach of Contract | Defense Against and Dismissal of a Claim for Return of Unjust Enrichment Asserting Breach of Contract

The client is the representative of a corporation engaged in the transportation of large cargo, and the corporation it operated had been responsible for tasks such as schedule management, dispatch coordination, and connecting carriers for transportation jobs entrusted by its business partners.

In this process, the client carried out the work by connecting some of the transportation tasks to outside carriers, and Employee A (hereinafter the “plaintiff”) performed transportation work within this structure through the client's arrangement.

In return for this, the plaintiff continued the work for several years, receiving settlement of the transportation fees after a brokerage fee of about 7 percent was deducted.

However, after the transactions ended, the plaintiff asserted that the brokerage fee had been excessively deducted during the past settlement process and filed a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment on the ground of the client's breach of contract.

The client thereupon came to request the assistance of a specialist attorney at Daeryun Law Firm.

1) An Objective Rebuttal to the Plaintiff's Assertions

The specialist attorney secured the tax invoices and settlement records for the transportation fees that the client had paid to the plaintiff and highlighted the point that the plaintiff had, for a long period, raised no objection to and had acquiesced in this settlement method.

In addition, on the basis of message records and the like, the attorney argued that the plaintiff had maintained a close relationship with the client and had been aware of the internal circumstances, emphasizing that asserting unjust enrichment after the fact was not reasonable.

2) A Rebuttal to the Breach of Contract Assertion Through Precedent

The specialist attorney, on the basis of Supreme Court Judgment 2008Da44368 of June 24, 2011, which held that ‘where the terms of a contract are not clear, the contract must be interpreted by comprehensively considering the circumstances of its conclusion and the parties' actual course of dealing’, argued that no agreement itself fixing the brokerage fee at a specific rate existed between the plaintiff and the client.

In particular, the attorney emphasized that, in light of the fact that the plaintiff had performed the settlements for several years without objection to the settlement amounts, an assertion of unjust enrichment premised on breach of contract could not be established.

The court recognized that the plaintiff had, for a long period, raised no objection to and had accepted the method of settling the transportation fees, and that no express agreement fixing the brokerage fee at a specific rate existed.

Accordingly, the court determined that the breach of contract asserted by the plaintiff was not established and that the claim for return of unjust enrichment likewise could not be accepted.

The court therefore rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

1) You Must First Accurately Identify the Structure by Which the Unjust Enrichment Is Said to Have Arisen and Then Respond

Where multiple contractual relationships or transactions are intertwined, you must require that it first be specified from which legal relationship the ‘unjust enrichment’ asserted by the opposing party arose.

2) You Must Clearly Point Out Who Bears the Burden of Proof

In a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, the opposing party must prove the occurrence of the benefit and the absence of a legal cause, so where the materials are insufficient or amount to no more than indirect evidence, you must actively point this out to highlight the limits of the claim.

3) You Must Counter the Opposing Party's Arguments on Prescription and Legitimate Performance With Legal Principles

Because disputes are anticipated over matters such as the completion of the extinctive prescription, legitimate payment under the contract, and an already concluded settlement relationship, a systematic rebuttal grounded in precedent and legal principles is important.

If you have been sued for return of unjust enrichment for breach of contract, a response based on an accurate analysis of the structure and issues of the matter is necessary.

Daeryun Law Firm forms a task force of 1 to 20 members, including specialist attorneys, and provides stage-by-stage assistance from analysis of the contractual relationship to organization of evidence, review of precedent, and the litigation response.

If you need a legal response in connection with a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, we encourage you to seek assistance through a 🔗legal consultation reservation.