Payment Order Attorney Assistance Case | Dismissal of an Application for a Payment Order for Repair Costs

As a result of the client's objection, the case proceeded to a suit on the merits, and the plaintiff changed the cause of action to a civil claim for the return of unjust enrichment (Article 741 of the Civil Act).

Article 741 of the Civil Act (Contents of Unjust Enrichment)

The plaintiff, even if the client did not contract directly, argued that the client obtained an actual benefit from the ship repair and therefore must return the corresponding cost.

Accordingly, the key issues in this case became whether the requirements for a claim for the return of unjust enrichment were met, and in particular whether legal cause was absent.

The procedure for filing a payment order is as follows.

In order to rebut the plaintiff's claim of unjust enrichment, the payment order attorney first clearly structured the cause of the repair and the attribution of that benefit.

As a result, the person who possessed the vessel and directed the repair at the time of the repair was the third party, and the client merely recovered the vessel later due to subsequent circumstances.

Accordingly, the attorney strongly argued that the client could not be regarded as owing an obligation to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff merely because the client had taken delivery of the vessel.

For a claim for return of unjust enrichment to be established, all of the following requirements must be met under Article 741 of the Civil Act.

Among these, the payment order attorney presented as the core argument that the requirement of the ‘absence of a legal cause’ was not met.

The plaintiff received the contractual performance from a third party (the person who requested the repair), and even if the result of that performance was attributed to the client, the attorney emphasized that this is not a legal structure under which a claim can be made against a third party rather than the counterparty to the contract.

The plaintiff argued that the value of the vessel had increased due to the repairs, and that the resulting benefit accrued to the client.

However, the payment order attorney rebutted this on the following grounds.

Accordingly, the attorney emphasized that it is difficult to conclude that the economic benefit from the repairs clearly accrued to the client, and that no 'benefit' substantively exists.

A payment order is a simple procedure, but if no response is made, it can have the same effect as a judgment based solely on the creditor’s one-sided assertion.

In particular, as in this case, where the facts are unclear or the legal relationships of a third party are involved, hastily paying the amount or making no response at all is very risky.

Law Firm Daeryun has many specialist attorneys with extensive case experience in civil proceedings.

If you have received an unexpected payment order, please 🔗schedule a legal consultation to promptly and accurately identify the legal issues and establish a response strategy.