Essential Guide to Claims for Restitution of Unjust Enrichment

Dựa trên 28 vụ tư vấn · Cập nhật 4 tháng 10, 2026 · Dịch từ bản gốc tiếng Hàn.

To establish a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, it is important to show that the other party obtained a benefit without legal grounds and that this caused loss to the claimant. However, whether restitution is required, and its scope, may vary depending on the specific circumstances, including deductible expenses, the circumstances at the time of payment, performance for an illegal cause, and a final judgment.

Các bên liên quan → Người yêu cầu hoàn trả → Người nhận lợi ích → Một bên được lợi từ tài sản hoặc dịch vụ của bên kia → Người nhận có lợi không có căn cứ pháp luật và làm bên kia bị thiệt hại? → Có — Điều 741 Bộ luật Dân sự → Tài sản được giao vì mục đích bất hợp pháp? → Không → Thường không đủ căn cứ đòi hoàn trả theo quy tắc này → Về nguyên tắc, có thể yêu cầu hoàn trả lợi ích → Có — Điều 746 Bộ luật Dân sự → Mức độ trái pháp luật của người nhận có lớn hơn đáng kể? → Có → Kiểm tra chi phí tạo ra lợi ích và lợi nhuận do công sức người nhận → Nếu không thể trả lại tài sản, chi phí có thể được khấu trừ; một số lợi nhuận có thể bị loại trừ → Kiểm tra khoản tiền có được trả tự nguyện hay để tránh thiệt hại → Biết không có nợ nhưng buộc phải trả để tránh thiệt hại có thể vẫn được đòi lại → Kiểm tra ai thực sự nhận lợi ích và các trường hợp đặc biệt → Ngân hàng có thể không được lợi từ chuy…

Điểm chính

A person who obtains a benefit from another person’s property or services without legal grounds, thereby causing loss to that person, must return the benefit (Civil Act, Article 741 (민법 제741조)).
If return of the property itself is impossible and its value must be repaid, expenses incurred to obtain the benefit may be deducted. In certain cases, operating profits obtained through the recipient’s efforts may also be excluded from the scope of restitution (Case 1, Supreme Court Decision 94다25551, rendered May 12, 1995).
Even if a person paid while knowing that no debt existed, they may not lose the right to claim a refund if the payment was not made voluntarily but was necessary to avoid loss resulting from refusal to pay (Civil Act, Article 742 (민법 제742조); Case 10).
Where property is provided for an illegal cause, restitution generally cannot be claimed, and a claim for restitution based on ownership may likewise be restricted on the same grounds. Exceptions may be recognized, however, including where the recipient’s illegality is substantially greater than that of the person who provided the property (Civil Act, Article 746 (민법 제746조); Cases 9, 11, 12, 16, and 22).
If, as a result of a mistaken transfer, the recipient obtains a deposit claim, restitution may in principle be claimed from the recipient. The receiving bank, however, may have no duty to make restitution because it obtained no benefit (Case 15, Supreme Court Decision 2007다51239, rendered November 29, 2007).
Even if money or other performance is provided directly to a third party at the direction of a contracting party, restitution of unjust enrichment generally cannot be claimed directly from that third party (Cases 14 and 19).
Restitution of unjust enrichment may be restricted even if a third party occupies land that has been made available as a public passageway and whose owner has relinquished the exclusive right to use and profit from it. By contrast, if a structure is built without authority and makes the entire parcel unusable, an amount equivalent to rent for the whole parcel may be included in the scope of restitution (Cases 4, 5, 18, and 24).
If a contract is void, a recipient in bad faith may have to return the benefit received together with statutory interest. If a judgment against a party in an objection-to-distribution action becomes final, it is difficult for that party to make a contrary argument about the right to receive the distribution in a subsequent action for restitution of unjust enrichment (Civil Act, Article 748(2) (민법 제748조 제2항); Cases 17 and 20).

Câu hỏi thường gặp

Q. If I accidentally transferred money to someone else’s account, can I claim its return from the bank?

If the recipient acquired a deposit claim through a bank transfer, you may, in principle, claim restitution of unjust enrichment from the recipient even if there was no transaction underlying the transfer. The receiving bank did not obtain the amount as a benefit, so a claim for restitution against the bank may not be upheld.

Vụ 15

Q. If I repaid money knowing that I did not owe it, can I not get it back?

If you voluntarily paid despite knowing that you had no debt, you may be unable to claim a refund. However, if you had no reasonable alternative but to pay to avoid actual loss, such as a foreclosure, that would result from refusing to pay, the payment may not be considered voluntary, and you may retain the right to claim a refund.

Vụ 10

Q. If I transferred real estate to pay a gambling debt, can I get ownership back?

If property was transferred for an illegal purpose, claims for restitution based on ownership, as well as claims for restitution of unjust enrichment, may in principle be restricted. However, a claim for restitution may be allowed where the recipient’s illegality is substantially greater than that of the person who provided the property. There have also been cases holding that cancellation of a mortgage may be sought where only a collateral security right was created.

Vụ 9, Vụ 11, Vụ 12, Vụ 22

Q. Is real estate registered through a transaction that violates the law, such as a title-trust arrangement, a performance for an illegal cause?

The mere fact that a transaction violated a statutory prohibition does not automatically make it a performance for an illegal cause under the Civil Act. In one case, the court held that an agreement to hold title in another person’s name in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and the registration made pursuant to that agreement, could not be considered a performance for an illegal cause on that basis alone.

Vụ 13

Q. If part of my land is occupied without permission, can I claim rent for the entire parcel?

If an unauthorized structure leaves the remaining land as a small, unusable plot that cannot in practice be used for the desired purpose, you may claim an amount equivalent to rent for the entire parcel. However, if the land has been made available as a public passageway and the owner is found to have relinquished the exclusive right to use and profit from it, the claim for restitution may be restricted on the basis that no loss was caused by the occupation.

Vụ 4, Vụ 18, Vụ 24

Q. Must I return the money received under a void sale contract together with interest?

An obligation to make restitution under a void contract is an obligation to restitute unjust enrichment, and a recipient in bad faith must return the benefit received together with statutory interest. In one case, the court held that payment of such interest differs in nature from damages for delay in performing the restitution obligation, and is therefore unrelated to whether the obligation to cancel the registration and the restitution obligation are subject to simultaneous performance.

Vụ 20

Q. If I have been charged compensation for unauthorized occupation of state property, can I also be required to pay civil restitution for unjust enrichment?

The right to impose and collect compensation for unauthorized occupation is a public-law right, while the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment is a private-law claim; they therefore have different legal natures. Accordingly, one case held that a civil claim for restitution of unjust enrichment may be brought separately from the imposition and collection of compensation.

Vụ 6

Q. Can I recover as unjust enrichment tax paid under an unlawful tax assessment?

If the defect in a tax assessment is merely one that makes the assessment revocable, it is difficult to obtain repayment of the tax as unjust enrichment while the assessment remains in force. The case explains that payment of tax constitutes unjust enrichment only where there is no legal basis for it at all, or where the defect in the tax assessment is so serious and obvious that the assessment is void as a matter of law.

Vụ 7

Q. After losing an objection-to-distribution action, can I claim restitution of unjust enrichment again?

Once a judgment on the merits in an objection-to-distribution action becomes final, the determination of the right to receive the disputed distribution may have res judicata effect. A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment based on an assertion inconsistent with that determination is restricted.

Vụ 17

Luật liên quan

Civil Act, Article 103 (민법 제103조)
Civil Act, Article 203 (민법 제203조)
Civil Act, Article 214 (민법 제214조)
Civil Act, Article 469 (민법 제469조)
Civil Act, Article 472 (민법 제472조)
Civil Act, Article 741 (민법 제741조)
Civil Act, Article 742 (민법 제742조)
Civil Act, Article 744 (민법 제744조)
Civil Act, Article 746 (민법 제746조)
Civil Act, Article 748 (민법 제748조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 216(1) (민사소송법 제216조 제1항)
Former State Property Act, Article 32(3) (구 국유재산법 제32조 제3항)
Former State Property Act, Article 51(1), (4), and (5) (구 국유재산법 제51조 제1항·제4항·제5항)
Act on Security over Movable Property and Claims, Article 35(2) (동산·채권 등의 담보에 관한 법률 제35조 제2항)
Labor Standards Act, Articles 18 and 34 (version before the amendments mentioned in the case) (근로기준법 제18조·제34조(사례에 언급된 개정 전 법률))

Lưu ý

A claim for restitution is not established merely because the other party obtained a benefit. The legal grounds, the claimant’s loss, and the relationship between the parties must all be considered.
Whether a transaction constitutes a performance for an illegal cause cannot be determined solely by whether it violated the law. The illegality of both the person who provided the benefit and the recipient, as well as the specific circumstances, must be examined.
The scope of restitution may vary depending on expenses incurred, benefits obtained through the recipient’s efforts, and whether the recipient acted in good or bad faith. Do not assume that the entire amount received is necessarily subject to restitution.
Where a separate administrative or litigation procedure is at issue, as with tax assessments or distributions, whether the decision has been revoked or the effect of a final judgment may affect a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

Các vụ tư vấn làm căn cứ

Hướng dẫn này do AI tổng hợp từ các vụ tư vấn sau của Tổng công ty Trợ giúp pháp lý Hàn Quốc (tiếng Hàn).

Đây là thông tin chung về pháp luật Hàn Quốc, không phải tư vấn pháp lý cho trường hợp cụ thể. Hãy hỏi luật sư hoặc Tổng công ty Trợ giúp pháp lý Hàn Quốc (gọi 132 tại Hàn Quốc).