Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Debt discharge as a negative increase in assets forming the benefit in unjust enrichment
Supreme Court, Mar. 28, 2024, 2023Da308911 (judgment)
Case name: 부당이득금[채무를 면하는 경우와 같은 재산의 소극적 증가도 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 이익에 해당한다고 본 사례]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where money taken from A by a phone scam was wired to a virtual account in the name of Company C and thereby paid off B's credit card debt, is not suffering that debt discharge a 'benefit' obtained without legal ground, and does B's lack of actual control over the money prevent an obligation to return it to A?
Holding
There is no limit on the way the 'benefit' required for unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act is obtained, and a negative increase in assets, such as not suffering a loss that would necessarily have arisen, is itself such a benefit. B obtained, without legal ground, the benefit of being discharged from its credit card debt to Company C by the money sent from A's account, so B must return that benefit to A. The benefit is not the money itself but the discharge of the debt through the transfer, so whether B actually controlled the money does not affect the duty to return, and the judgment below erred contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 ‘이익’을 얻은 방법에는 제한이 없다. 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것과 같은 재산의 소극적 증가도 이익에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
There is no limitation on the method by which the 'benefit,' a requirement for the formation of such unjust enrichment, is obtained. A passive increase in property, such as not suffering a loss that would naturally have arisen from the occurrence of a certain fact, as in the case of being released from a debt, also falls under benefit.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울북부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District 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 limitation on the method by which the 'benefit,' a requirement for the formation of such unjust enrichment, is obtained.
Factors
- 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것과 같은 재산의 소극적 증가도 이익에 해당한다
- 갑의 자녀를 사칭한 성명불상자가 갑에게 전화하여 갑의 휴대전화에 원격조종 프로그램을 설치한 다음
- 위 돈은 을의 병 회사에 대한 신용카드대금으로 결제되었고
- 을이 위 돈을 사실상 지배할 수 있는 상태에 이르지 못하여 실질적인 이득을 얻지 못하였다는 이유로
- 을이 위 돈을 사실상 지배하였는지는 을의 부당이득 반환의무 발생에 영향을 미치는 사정이 아닌데도
Unofficial English translation
• A passive increase in property, such as not suffering a loss that would naturally have arisen from the occurrence of a certain fact, as in the case of being released from a debt, also falls under benefit
• An unidentified person impersonating a child of A called A, installed a remote-control program on A's mobile phone, and then
• The aforesaid money was paid as B's credit card charges owed to Company C, and
• on the ground that B did not reach a state in which B could actually control the aforesaid money and thus did not obtain any substantive benefit
• although whether B actually controlled the aforesaid money is not a circumstance affecting the arising of B's obligation to make restitution of unjust enrichment
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017다225978, 225985 판결(공2018상, 58)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225978, 225985 decided December 5, 2017 (Gong 2018 Sang, 58)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017다225978, 225985 판결(공2018상, 58), 대법원 2019. 1. 17. 선고 2016두60287 판결(공2019상, 489)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the sum wired from A's account exceeded the part of B's credit card debt it discharged, how much of that sum is the benefit B must return?
The rehearing by the Seoul Northern District Court in case 2023Na35358 will show how the court below applies the rule to a recipient who did not receive the money into an account of its own. A later Supreme Court decision on how a discharged debt is valued, or an amendment to Article 741 of the Civil Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary states the legal requirement of benefit, including that a negative increase in assets qualifies and that there is no limit on how it is obtained, while the independent applies that rule to the facts, so the criterion is framed as a requirement in one and as application in the other.
을이 자신의 신용카드대금 채무이행과 관련하여 병 회사 명의의 가상계좌로 송금된 갑의 돈으로 법률상 원인 없이 위 채무를 면하는 이익을 얻었으므로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the sum wired from A's account exceeded the part of B's credit card debt it discharged, how much of that sum is the benefit B must return?” vs Independent “How would the restitution obligation change if the credit-card payment were later reversed and the debt reinstated?”
The primary asks how much of the transferred sum is the benefit when it exceeds the debt, while the independent asks how restitution changes if the card payment is later reversed.
이러한 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 ‘이익’을 얻은 방법에는 제한이 없다. 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것과 같은 재산의 소극적 증가도 이익에 해당한다.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 Seoul Northern District Court, in its judgment of 23 November 2023 (2023Na35358), kept the first-instance judgment dismissing A's claim. It began from the premise that no restitution duty arises where the gain did not substantially inure to the recipient, and held that A had to show circumstances in which B reached a state of actually controlling the money sent from A's account. Finding A's submitted evidence insufficient for that, it affirmed the dismissal. It also described the virtual account into which the money went as B's account.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the virtual account was Company C's account, created so that B could pay its credit card debt, and not B's account. B obtained without legal ground the benefit of being discharged from its debt, and the benefit is that discharge rather than the money itself, so whether B actually controlled the money is not a circumstance affecting the duty to return. Since the judgment below nevertheless denied B's duty on that ground, it contained a judgment contrary to Supreme Court precedent as Article 3(i) of the Small Claims Trial Act provides, and the whole judgment was reversed and remanded to the court below by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A transfer made to repay a debt the recipient was in fact owed, so that the receipt rests on a legal ground and Article 741 of the Civil Act does not reach it.
- A case in which no debt of the recipient was in fact extinguished by the money, so that the negative increase in assets the Court relied on cannot be shown.
- A case in which the money stayed in an account of the recipient and the claim is for the money itself rather than for a discharged debt.
Record verification notes
Trace the path of the money from A's account to the account that received it, and confirm from the record that the goods-price settlement between Company C and the merchants was completed so that B's card debt was extinguished. Note that the Supreme Court decided only the legal premise and did not decide the merits, so the file on B's awareness and on any ground for the receipt still matters on remand.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것이 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 ‘이익’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 갑의 자녀를 사칭한 성명불상자가 갑에게 전화하여 갑의 휴대전화에 원격조종 프로그램을 설치한 다음, 갑의 은행계좌에서 을에게 부여된 병 주식회사의 가상계좌로 100만 원을 이체하였는데, 위 돈은 을의 병 회사에 대한 신용카드대금으로 결제되었고, 이에 갑이 성명불상자로부터 송금을 받은 을을 상대로 부당이득반환을 구한 사안에서, 을이 위 돈을 사실상 지배할 수 있는 상태에 이르지 못하여 실질적인 이득을 얻지 못하였다는 이유로 을의 부당이득 반환의무를 부정한 원심판결에 소액사건심판법 제3조 제1호에서 정한 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단’을 한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a failure to suffer a loss that would naturally have arisen from the occurrence of a certain fact, as in the case of being released from a debt, falls under the requirement of 'benefit' for the formation of unjust enrichment (affirmative) [2] In a case where an unidentified person impersonating a child of A called A, installed a remote-control program on A's mobile phone, and then transferred 1 million won from A's bank account to the virtual account of Company C assigned to B; the aforesaid money was paid as B's credit card charges owed to Company C; and A filed an action seeking restitution of unjust enrichment against B who received the remittance from the unidentified person, a case holding that the judgment of the court below, which denied B's obligation to make restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground that B did not reach a state in which B could actually control the aforesaid money and thus did not obtain any substantive benefit, was in error in that it made a determination 'contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court' as provided in Article 3, subparagraph 1 of the Trial of Small Claims Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 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. 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것과 같은 재산의 소극적 증가도 이익에 해당한다. [2] 갑의 자녀를 사칭한 성명불상자가 갑에게 전화하여 갑의 휴대전화에 원격조종 프로그램을 설치한 다음, 갑의 은행계좌에서 을에게 부여된 병 주식회사의 가상계좌로 100만 원을 이체하였는데, 위 돈은 을의 병 회사에 대한 신용카드대금으로 결제되었고, 이에 갑이 성명불상자로부터 송금을 받은 을을 상대로 부당이득반환을 구한 사안에서, 을이 자신의 신용카드대금 채무이행과 관련하여 병 회사 명의의 가상계좌로 송금된 갑의 돈으로 법률상 원인 없이 위 채무를 면하는 이익을 얻었으므로 갑에게 그 이익을 부당이득으로 반환할 의무를 부담하고, 이때 을이 얻은 이익은 위 돈 자체가 아니라 위 돈이 병 회사 명의의 가상계좌로 송금되어 자신의 채무를 면하게 된 것이므로, 을이 위 돈을 사실상 지배하였는지는 을의 부당이득 반환의무 발생에 영향을 미치는 사정이 아닌데도, 을이 위 돈을 사실상 지배할 수 있는 상태에 이르지 못하여 실질적인 이득을 얻지 못하였다는 이유로 을의 부당이득 반환의무를 부정한 원심판결에 소액사건심판법 제3조 제1호에서 정한 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단’을 한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울북부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제741조 [2] 민법 제741조, 소액사건심판법 제3조 제1호
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