Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Value-added tax paid by an entrusted organisation is no enrichment
Supreme Court, Jan. 17, 2019, 2016Du60287 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a state body or local government entrusts an organisation with the management of a facility and lets it use and profit from the facility, and that organisation supplies goods or services in its own name and account and pays value-added tax, does the mere fact of that payment give the entrusting state body or local government a benefit without legal ground, so that it is unjustly enriched?
Holding
No. Under Article 741 of the Civil Act a benefit may be obtained in any way, including the passive increase in property that consists in not suffering a loss which would have followed from a given event, such as being released from a debt. But where the entrusted organisation supplies goods or services in its own name and on its own account, the VAT debtor is that organisation and not the entrusting state body or local government, so its payment merely discharges its own tax debt under the VAT Act and cannot by itself show that the entrusting body was enriched without legal ground.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 시설의 관리 등을 위탁받은 단체가 재화 또는 용역을 공급하고 부가가치세를 납부한 것은 자신이 거래당사자로서 부담하는 부가가치세법에 따른 조세채무를 이행한 것에 불과하므로, 그와 같은 사정만으로 위탁자인 국가나 지방자치단체가 법률상 원인 없이 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 얻어 부당이득을 하였다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, the fact that the organization entrusted with the management, etc. of the facilities supplied goods or services and paid value-added tax merely amounts to performing the tax obligation under the Value-Added Tax Act which it bears as a party to the transaction, and therefore such circumstances alone cannot be regarded as the State or the local government, the entrusting party, having been unjustly enriched by obtaining a benefit such as being released from obligations without any ground in law.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이러한 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 ‘이익’을 얻은 방법에는 제한이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
There is no restriction on the method by which such 'benefit,' which is a requirement for such unjust enrichment to be established, is obtained.
Factors
- 재산의 소극적 증가도 이익에 해당한다
- 국가나 지방자치단체가 아니라 거래당사자인 위 단체가 부가가치세 납세의무를 부담하는 것이다
- 자신이 거래당사자로서 부담하는 부가가치세법에 따른 조세채무를 이행한 것에 불과하므로
- 그와 같은 사정만으로 위탁자인 국가나 지방자치단체가 법률상 원인 없이 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 얻어 부당이득을 하였다고 볼 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
• A passive increase in property also constitutes a benefit
• It is the said organization, as a party to the transaction and not the State or the local government, that bears the obligation to pay value-added tax
• as it merely amounts to performing the tax obligation under the Value-Added Tax Act which it bears as a party to the transaction,
• such circumstances alone cannot be regarded as the State or the local government, the entrusting party, having been unjustly enriched by obtaining a benefit such as being released from obligations without any ground in law
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 7. 11. 선고 2015두48754 판결(공2017하, 1656)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Du48754 decided July 11, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 1656)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1995. 12. 5. 선고 95다22061 판결(공1996상, 200), 대법원 2017. 7. 11. 선고 2015두48754 판결(공2017하, 1656), 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017다225978, 225985 판결(공2018상, 58)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the entrusting agreement expressly puts the value-added tax on the local government, does a payment by the entrusted organisation still leave the local government with no benefit without legal ground?
The remand judgment of the Daejeon High Court, if it finds another ground on which the local government owes the amount, would show how the rule works beyond the VAT payment itself. Any amendment to Article 741 of the Civil Act or to the allocation of VAT liability under the VAT Act would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 20 October 2016 (2016Nu11665), held that the defendant local government ultimately had to bear the value-added tax on the supplies made from the youth training facility, and that the plaintiff had paid it on the local government's behalf. On that footing it ordered the local government to return to the plaintiff, as unjust enrichment, the amount of the value-added tax and surcharges the plaintiff had paid.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had merely supplied goods or services as the operator of the facility and paid the value-added tax and surcharges it owed as the transaction party, so the local government could not be said to have obtained a corresponding benefit. It held that the reasoning below misapprehended the law on unjust enrichment and affected the outcome, and reversed the whole judgment, remanding the case to the Daejeon High Court on the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the entrusted organisation supplies goods or services in the name and on the account of the entrusting state body or local government, so that it is not the transaction party bearing the VAT.
- Outside the holding, which says only that the mere fact of the VAT payment cannot show enrichment; the Court named no contract or subsidy exception, so any other legal ground on which the entrusting body must bear the amount has to be decided separately.
- A claim built on benefits other than the fact that value-added tax was paid, such as the use fees the entrusted organisation collected from users.
Record verification notes
Check first that the supplies were made in the entrusted organisation's own name and on its own account, and that it was the VAT taxpayer who paid the tax and surcharges, since the Court's reasoning rests on those two facts. Then read the whole agreement, including the clauses on costs and the permitted subsidy within the budget, to see whether any provision puts the VAT on the local government, remembering that the Court decided only that the payment alone cannot show enrichment. The amount at stake here was KRW 453,719,360 in tax and surcharges for the first parts of 2007 to 2012, paid on 31 October 2013.
From the official text
Points at issue
국가나 지방자치단체가 어느 단체에게 시설의 관리 등을 위탁하여 이를 사용·수익하게 하고, 그 단체가 자신의 명의와 계산으로 재화 또는 용역을 공급하고 부가가치세를 납부한 경우, 그러한 사정만으로 위탁자인 국가나 지방자치단체가 법률상 원인 없이 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 얻어 부당이득을 한 것인지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where the State or a local government entrusts the management, etc. of facilities to an organization, thereby allowing it to use and profit from them, and that organization supplies goods or services in its own name and on its own account and pays value-added tax, such circumstances alone render the State or the local government, the entrusting party, unjustly enriched by obtaining a benefit such as being released from obligations without any ground in law (negative)
Summary of the holding
법률상 원인 없이 타인의 재산 또는 노무로 인하여 이익을 얻고 이로 인하여 타인에게 손해를 입힌 자는 그 이익을 반환하여야 한다(민법 제741조). 이러한 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 ‘이익’을 얻은 방법에는 제한이 없다. 가령 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것과 같은 재산의 소극적 증가도 이익에 해당한다. 그런데 국가나 지방자치단체가 어느 단체에게 시설의 관리 등을 위탁하여 이를 사용·수익하게 하고, 그 단체가 자신의 명의와 계산으로 제3자에게 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 경우에는 국가나 지방자치단체가 아니라 거래당사자인 위 단체가 부가가치세 납세의무를 부담하는 것이다. 따라서 시설의 관리 등을 위탁받은 단체가 재화 또는 용역을 공급하고 부가가치세를 납부한 것은 자신이 거래당사자로서 부담하는 부가가치세법에 따른 조세채무를 이행한 것에 불과하므로, 그와 같은 사정만으로 위탁자인 국가나 지방자치단체가 법률상 원인 없이 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 얻어 부당이득을 하였다고 볼 수 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제741조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger