Lawsuit for Return of Unjust Enrichment | All Claims of the Plaintiff Seeking Return of Unjust Enrichment Dismissed

🔗A lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment is a lawsuit that legally demands the return of profit from a person who has gained profit by using another person's property or services without a legal cause.

A lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment is a type of lawsuit that arises in various areas of everyday life.

The important point in a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment is that one must prove that, beyond the other party having gained profit, harm was caused through the use of one's own property or real estate.

If another person gained profit by using one's property or real estate but no harm was caused to oneself, the fact of unjust enrichment may not be established.

In other words, in order to file a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment, the following requirements must be met: ▲there is no legal cause, ▲a loss is incurred by oneself, ▲the other party gains profit, and ▲there is a causal relationship between the two.

A Lawsuit for Return of Unjust Enrichment, a Precedent on the Legal Status of a Third Party

A management company that carried out renovation work approved by a local government completed the work and donated it for public use even after receiving a notice rejecting the design change and the cost increase.

The merchants' association that bore the construction costs (the independent party intervenor) claimed against the local government for the return of unjust enrichment or for reimbursement of costs as a manager of affairs.

Article 261 of the Civil Act recognizes a right to claim the return of unjust enrichment in certain situations, but the requirements of Article 261 alone are not sufficient, and the general requirements for unjust enrichment must be met.

In other words, a party claiming a loss must prove whether its loss is at a level that can be claimed for return under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

In principle, performance between contracting parties cannot constitute unjust enrichment unless the contractual relationship has been lawfully nullified.

In addition, even if contractual performance provides a benefit to a third party, this does not create a right to claim the return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party.

Liabilities and rights under a contract arise only between the contracting parties.

The Supreme Court determined that the movable property in question belonged to the management company, and that the independent party intervenor had no right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the local government for it.

This emphasized that, for a claim for the return of unjust enrichment to be established, the relationship of ownership and the attribution of rights must be clearly proven.

The independent party intervenor cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment against the local government, and the relevant portion of the judgment of the court below was reversed and remanded because it was based on a mistaken premise.

This precedent shows that, when asserting a claim for the return of unjust enrichment in the context of contractual and ownership relationships, the relationship of rights between the contracting parties and a third party must be made clear.

🔗A Lawsuit for Return of Unjust Enrichment: the Supreme Court's Ruling That Remuneration Received Without a Resolution of the General Meeting Cannot Be Regarded as Payment of a Non-Debt

The client and the plaintiff were in a romantic relationship and had been living together at the client's home.

The plaintiff, whose financial circumstances had worsened, proposed living together to the client, and the client accepted.

The plaintiff agreed to pay the client the amount remaining from the plaintiff's salary after the plaintiff's own use, under the heading of rent, living expenses, and the like.

The client's attorney argued that the money the plaintiff paid to the client was paid under the heading of rent and living expenses, and that it was therefore not a benefit the client obtained from the plaintiff's property and services without a legal cause.