Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
A further action on a remaining claim after a final judgment
Supreme Court, Oct. 31, 2024, 2024Da250729 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 부당이득금반환및손해배상청구사건
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a creditor who has won a final judgment on one of a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and a claim for tort damages, but has not yet obtained satisfaction, bring an action for performance on the remaining claim, and must the defence that the remaining claims were extinguished to the same extent as the satisfaction obtained be decided on the merits?
Holding
Yes on both points. Unjust enrichment and tort damages are separate claims in substantive law, and an action on each has a different object of litigation in procedural law, so a creditor who has won a final judgment on one of them may still bring an action for performance on the remaining claim while the debt remains unsatisfied. Whether the remaining claims were extinguished to the extent of the satisfaction obtained is a matter whose merits must be decided in the new action.
Points at issue, verbatim
부당이득반환청구권과 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권 중 어느 하나에 관한 소를 제기하여 승소 확정판결을 받았으나 채권의 만족을 얻지 못한 경우, 나머지 청구권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a party has filed an action on either a right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment or a right to claim damages arising from a tort and has obtained a final and conclusive judgment in his or her favor but has not obtained satisfaction of the claim, whether an action for performance on the remaining claim may be filed (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 망 ○○○의 소송수계인들과 피고 1에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 별지 기재 피고들의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the successors in litigation of the defendant, the late ○○○, and Defendant 1 is reversed and remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The appeal of the defendants listed in the annex is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
부당이득반환청구권과 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권은 실체법상 별개의 청구권으로 존재하고 그 각 청구권에 기초하여 이행을 구하는 소는 소송법적으로도 소송물을 달리하므로, 채권자로서는 어느 하나의 청구권에 관한 소를 제기하여 승소 확정판결을 받았다고 하더라도 아직 채권의 만족을 얻지 못한 경우에는 다른 나머지 청구권에 관한 이행판결을 얻기 위하여 그에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
A right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment and a right to claim damages arising from a tort exist as separate claims under substantive law, and an action seeking performance based on each of those claims also has a different subject matter of suit in terms of procedural law; therefore, even if a creditor has filed an action on either one of the claims and obtained a final and conclusive judgment in his or her favor, where satisfaction of the claim has not yet been obtained, the creditor may file an action for performance on the other remaining claim in order to obtain a judgment for performance thereon
Factors
- 승소 확정판결을 받았으나 채권의 만족을 얻지 못한 경우
- 나머지 청구권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
- 채권자가 어느 하나의 청구권에 관하여 일부 또는 전부의 만족을 얻어 다른 나머지 청구권도 같은 금액 범위에서 소멸하였다는 사유는 본안에서 그 당부가 판단되어야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• where a final and conclusive judgment in one's favor has been obtained but satisfaction of the claim has not been obtained
• whether an action for performance on the remaining claim may be filed (affirmative)
• whether the ground that the creditor has obtained satisfaction in part or in whole on either one of the claims, with the other remaining claim also having been extinguished to the same extent in amount, should be determined on the merits (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 9. 13. 선고 2013다45457 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da45457 decided September 13, 2013.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2012. 12. 13. 선고 2011다50080, 50097 판결, 대법원 2013. 9. 13. 선고 2013다45457 판결(공2013하, 1795)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the creditor holds final judgments on both claims and receives only part payment, from which claim is the satisfaction credited first, and how is any shortfall divided between them?
The remand court's determination of how much the plaintiff was satisfied with in the earlier case, and whether the remaining claims survive to that extent, will show how the merits defence operates. A later decision on the effect of a final judgment under Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act, or an amendment to Article 741 or Article 750 of the Civil Code, 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 reading records the standard as stating requirements, while the independent reading applies the standard to the facts of this case. Both still send the satisfaction question to the merits, so the difference is in the form of the standard, not its direction.
부당이득반환청구권과 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권 중 어느 하나에 관한 소를 제기하여 승소 확정판결을 받았으나 채권의 만족을 얻지 못한 경우Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the creditor holds final judgments on both claims and receives only part payment, from which claim is the satisfaction credited first, and how is any shortfall divided between them?” vs Independent “To what extent, if any, had satisfaction of the unjust enrichment claim extinguished the tort claim against the defendants covered by the remand?”
The primary asks how satisfaction is allocated between two claims that both have final judgments and how any shortfall is divided. The independent asks how far the tort claim against the remanded defendants was actually extinguished by the unjust enrichment satisfaction.
부당이득반환청구권과 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권 중 어느 하나에 관한 소를 제기하여 승소 확정판결을 받았으나 채권의 만족을 얻지 못한 경우, 나머지 청구권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 수 있는지 여부(적극)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 Central District Court, in its judgment of 17 May 2024 (2023Na14062, 2023Na14079), held that a mediation recommendation decision ordering Defendant 1 and the successors of the deceased to pay the plaintiff rent-equivalent unjust enrichment had become final and conclusive on the same factual relationship. It therefore held that the part of this suit seeking tort damages for unlawful possession against those defendants lacked any interest in legal protection and was inadmissible.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that unjust enrichment and tort damages exist as separate claims in substantive law, and that an action on each has a different object of litigation in procedural law, citing Supreme Court Decision 2013Da45457. A final judgment on one claim therefore does not remove the interest in legal protection in an action on the other, and the defence of extinction to the extent of satisfaction must be decided on the merits, following Supreme Court Decision 2011Da50080, 2011Da50097. It reversed the part below concerning Defendant 1 and the successors and remanded it to the Seoul Central District Court, while finding no error in the dismissal of the other defendants' appeals on grounds including a late-raised attack and defence, the establishment of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, and the calculation and scope of the amount, and dismissing those appeals with costs on them.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the creditor has already obtained partial or full satisfaction from one of the claims, so that the remaining claims are extinguished to the same extent, since that question is decided on the merits rather than by the bar.
- A case in which the earlier final judgment rests on the same claim and the same object of litigation, so that the effect of that judgment, referred to in Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act, would bar the later action.
- A case in which the earlier mediation recommendation decision or judgment has not become final and conclusive, since the decision turned on its finality.
Record verification notes
First identify which claim the earlier judgment covered and confirm that it became final and conclusive. Then quantify what the plaintiff has actually been satisfied with, because that amount reduces the remaining claims on the merits, and keep the defendants whose appeals were dismissed on other grounds apart from those covered by the reversal. The provisions applied were Article 741 and Article 750 of the Civil Code and Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act.
From the official text
Points at issue
부당이득반환청구권과 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권 중 어느 하나에 관한 소를 제기하여 승소 확정판결을 받았으나 채권의 만족을 얻지 못한 경우, 나머지 청구권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 이 경우 채권자가 어느 하나의 청구권에 관하여 일부 또는 전부의 만족을 얻어 다른 나머지 청구권도 같은 금액 범위에서 소멸하였다는 사유는 본안에서 그 당부가 판단되어야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a party has filed an action on either a right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment or a right to claim damages arising from a tort and has obtained a final and conclusive judgment in his or her favor but has not obtained satisfaction of the claim, an action for performance on the remaining claim may be filed (affirmative), and whether, in such case, the ground that the creditor has obtained satisfaction in part or in whole on either one of the claims, with the other remaining claim also having been extinguished to the same extent in amount, should be determined on the merits (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 망 ○○○의 소송수계인들과 피고 1에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 별지 기재 피고들의 상고를 기각한다. 별지 기재 피고들의 상고비용은 위 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the successors in litigation of the defendant, the late ○○○, and Defendant 1 is reversed and remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The appeal of the defendants listed in the annex is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal of the defendants listed in the annex shall be borne by those defendants.
Provisions referred to
민법 제741조, 제750조, 민사소송법 제216조
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