Seoul Attorney Office | Seoul Attorney Assists the Client in Recovering Unjust Enrichment

The client explained that, although he joined the regional housing association and entered into the contract, the information at the time of the contract was insufficient.

The client explained that the defendant's disclosure of information that it was obligated to provide was inadequate, and that there were many grounds for flaws, in particular the discovery of significant procedural defects in the contracting process.

In the process of recruiting members, the defendant prepared and delivered a written refund guarantee in order to reassure the contracting parties and induce them to enter into contracts.

However, the client came to learn that the refund guarantee in question was not a legally guaranteed procedure and was a document that could not clearly establish responsibility in the event that a problem arose.

The client explained that there had been embezzlement of public funds, on the ground that the defendant disposed of the members' membership contributions at will, without even a resolution of the general meeting.

In the end, because the defendant used the membership contributions without a resolution of the general meeting and delivered a written refund guarantee that was not legally protected, all of this is void, and so the defendant is deemed to have used unjust enrichment.

The client came to the Seoul attorney in order to recover the unjust enrichment in question.

The attorney argued that the letter of undertaking prepared at the time the contract was concluded had no legal effect.

The attorney argued that the letter of undertaking prepared during the contracting process failed to meet the formal requirements legally mandated, such as the duty of disclosure, and that it was forced to include terms unfavorable to the client, who was a party to this case.

In particular, the letter of undertaking included a clause exempting the association from liability for any loss that might arise after the contract was concluded, and the attorney established that this clause was legally void because it ran counter to the principle of good faith under the Civil Act.

The attorney argued that the contract had been concluded as a result of the defendant's misrepresentation.

The attorney argued that the defendant had provided the client with exaggerated information about the anticipated profits and benefits of joining the association, and that, in doing so, the defendant had intentionally concealed the significant risks this posed to the client.

In short, because the false information provided by the defendant was the decisive factor leading the client to conclude the contract, the attorney argued that there was a causal relationship between the defendant's misrepresentation and the client's act of entering into the contract.

The attorney argued that the defendant's embezzlement had caused serious harm to the property of all members of the association.

The attorney submitted to the court records showing that the defendant had embezzled the association's public funds by unlawfully transferring them to a personal account, along with records showing that the funds had not been used for operating expenses.

The attorney also worked to prove the case by presenting evidence that the defendant had used the members' contributions for personal purposes, providing clear evidence of the embezzlement of public funds.