Actio de in rem verso



ⓐ 계약상의 급부가 계약의 상대방뿐만 아니라 제3자의 이익으로 된 경우에 급부를 한 계약당사자가 계약 상대방에 대하여 계약상의 반대급부를 청구할 수 있는 이외에 그 제3자에 대하여 직접 부당이득반환청구를 할 수 있다고 보면, 자기 책임하에 체결된 계약에 따른 위험부담을 제3자에게 전가시키는 것이 된다.

Where the performance of a contract benefited not only the contracting party but also a third party, if the party who performed the contract is entitled, apart from claiming the counter-performance of the contracting party, to claim return of unjust enrichment from that third party concerning the benefit accrued, it would have the effect of shifting the risk of the transaction to the third party.

ⓑ 일반적으로, 계약당사자는 그 위험을 스스로 부담해야 하므로, 수익자인 제3자에 대한 부당이득반환청구를 허용하는 것은 계약법의 기본원리에 반하는 결과를 초래한다.

In general, since the contract parties ought to take the risk upon themselves, allowing return of unjust enrichment from a third party concerning the contractual performance would violate the basic principles of contract law.

ⓒ 또한, 채권자인 계약당사자가 채무자인 계약 상대방의 일반채권자에 비하여 우대받는 결과가 되어 일반채권자의 이익을 해치게 된다.

It would also amount to allowing a preferential claim for the party who carried out such contractual performance compared to other general creditors of the other party to the contract.

ⓓ 그리고, 수익자인 제3자가 계약 상대방에 대하여 가지는 항변권 등을 침해하게 되어 부당하다.

Moreover, the third party may be deprived of the defence which he would have been able to plead against the other party to the contract.

ⓔ 따라서, 계약상의 급부를 한 계약당사자는 이익의 귀속 주체인 제3자에 대하여 직접 부당이득반환을 청구할 수 없다.

Therefore, the party who performed the contract should not be allowed to claim return of unjust enrichment from the third party who benefited from the contractual performance.



[Case 1] 전용물소권 인정여부(99다66564)

DesktopMobile




반응형

Where Actio de in rem verso is recognized



1. 사건의 개요 Summing-up


(1) X 건물은 'D'가 1/2 지분, 'N-1', 'N-2'가 각 1/4 지분으로 공유하고 있다.

The building 'X' was jointly owned by 'D' who had 1/2 share of the building, and by 'N-1' and 'N-2' who had individually 1/4 share of the building.


(2) 'N-1'은 'D'의 동의 없이 1994. 5. 10. 'P'에게 X건물의 1, 2층 창호공사를 금 2억5천만원에 도급하는 계약을 체결했다.

On May 10, 1994, without 'D''s consent, 'N-1' entered into a contract with 'P' who agreed to install windows on the first and second floors of the building 'X' at the contract price of 250 million won.


(3) 'P'가 약정기간 내에 공사를 완료했음에도 'N-1'은  'P'에게 공사대금을 지급하지 않았다.

Although 'P' completed the work within the agreed time period, 'N-1' did not pay the contract price for the work.


(4) 'P'의 공사 결과 X 건물의 가치는 금 1억5천만원 증가했다.

The value of the building has increased by 150 million won as a result of the work done by 'P'.


(5) 'P'는 'D'를 상대로 부당이득반환 또는 유익비상환을 청구했다.

'P' claimed that 'D' is liable to pay either of unjust enrichment or of the owner's duty to reimburse useful expenses spent on his behalf.


2. 원심의 판결 The Judgment of the court below


'D'는 'P'에게 공사로 인하여 X 건물의 가치가 증가한 부분 중 'D' 지분에 상응하는 금 7천5백만원을 부당이득 내지 유익비로서 반환할 의무가 있다.

'D' is liable to pay 'P' 75 million won, which is 1/2 of the increased value of the building - corresponding to 'D''s share of the ownership of the building - on the ground either of unjust enrichment or of the owner's duty to reimburse useful expenses spent on his behalf.


3. 대법원의 판결 The Judgment of the Supreme court


(1) ⓐ 계약상의 급부를 한 계약당사자는 이익의 귀속 주체인 제3자에 대하여 직접 부당이득반환을 청구할 수 없다.

Therefore, the party who performed the contract should not be allowed to claim return of unjust enrichment from the third party who benefited from the contractual performance.

ⓑ 따라서, 'N-1'으로부터 X 건물에 관한 공사를 도급받아 공사를 완료한 'P'는 X 건물의 공유자 중 1인인 'D'에 대하여 직접 부당이득반환을 청구할 수 없다. 

Thus, 'P' who contracted with 'N-1' and completed the building work in fulfillment of his contractual duty should not be allowed to claim return of unjust enrichment on the ground of unjust enrichment from 'D' who is one of the co-owners of the property.


(2) ⓐ 소유자에 대한 관계에 있어서 민법 제203조에 의한 비용상환청구권을 행사할 수 있는 비용지출자는 도급인이다.

The party who gave the contract is the one who can claim a reimbursement of useful expenses from the owner of the property under the Civil Code, Article 203.

ⓒ 따라서, 'P'는 'D'에게 유익비상환을 청구할 지위에 있지 않다.

Thus, 'P' is not in the position to claim a reimbursement of useful expenses from 'D'.



[관련글] 전용물소권

DesktopMobile


[관련글] 도급계약과 유익비상환청구권

DesktopMobile





반응형

A tax filing and Unjust Enrichment lawsuit



Supreme Court Decision 98Da47184 delivered on February 25, 2000

 

 

1. Summing-up

 

ⓐ The plaintiff(the Korea Broadcasting System) filed the value-added tax amount by deducting the input tax amount for the commercial broadcasting by calculating the proportionate ratio of the revenue from the advertising fees to the aggregate revenue (i.e., the aggregate sum of the revenue from advertising fees and receiving fees, etc.), without dividing and confirming the portion associated with the advertising business.

ⓑ The plaintiff paid the value-added tax examined in this case without any reservation until it was indicated during the National Assembly's annual inspection for the year 1993 that the payment of the corporate tax was improper which led to the filing of this suit.

 

2. Judgment of Supreme Court

 

ⓐ In the type of taxes paid by reporting and filing by the taxpayer such as the value-added tax, the tax obligation is formatively confirmed by the act of the taxpayer reporting and filing its own tax base and the tax amount, and the payment of the tax amount is deemed to be a performance of the tax obligation formatively confirmed by such reporting.

ⓑ The national or municipal governments retain the tax amount paid based on the tax claim confirmed by the above procedure.

ⓒ Therefore, unless the tax filing of the taxpayer is null and void due to a material and clear defect, it cannot be forthwith deemed as unjust enrichment.

ⓓ In considering whether a tax filing is null and void due to a material and clear defect, a reasonable judgment must be made upon teleological review of the purpose, significance and function of the regulation under which the tax filing has been made and the available remedies for the defective tax filing as well as a case-by-case consideration of the circumstances leading to the tax filing.

ⓔ The plaintiff did not distinguish the profit-making business and other businesses in its accounting.

ⓕ The plaintiff's filing of the value-added tax amount is illegal.

ⓖ However, it is an open question of the construction of law whether the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the former Enforcement Decree to the Value-Added Tax Act can be applied by analogy to the case where the taxable and non-taxable businesses are concurrently conducted.

ⓗ It is difficult to regard the above defect as overtly clear.

ⓘ Therefore, the tax filing at issue in this case was not null and void per se.

반응형

+ Recent posts