상거래로 인한 부당이득반환청구권의소멸시효에 관한 연구

This paper discusses the 2003 Korea Supreme Court ruling and the 2007 Korea Supreme Court ruling on extinctive prescription of the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in business transactions. These two issues have the following in common: 1. The party claiming for restitution of unjust enrichment (henceforth “the Party”) exercised the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (henceforth “the Right”) on the grounds that the contract that resulted from the business transaction is invalid, 2. The Party made the payment without the knowledge of unjust enrichment, and 3. Between the time the Party made the payment and the time the Party filed a suit, a ruling was issued on a separate case, which objectively showed that the Party can claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. In 2003, the Korea Supreme court ruled on these issues that the period of prescription of the Right begins from the moment the Party objectively came to the knowledge of its right to claim taking effect and that the prescription period is ten years. In 2007, however, the Korea Supreme Court ruled that the period of prescription of the Right begins from the moment the unjust enrichment occurred and the prescription period is five years. Since these Supreme Court rulings have conflicting views on when the prescription period begins and how long it lasts, this paper reviews the validity of said disparity. The Supreme Court should, through its verdicts, perform a role of providing future guidelines to members of the society. However, in its rulings on extinctive prescription of the Right, it is difficult to conclude that the Supreme Court provided proper guidelines to members of the society who might face similar situation. On the matter of extinctive prescription of the Right, a logical way is to determine when the prescription period begins and how long it lasts by differentiating between the time the Party comes to the knowledge that its right has taken effect and the time the unjust enrichment has occurred. If the Party was aware that the contract resulted from the business transaction was invalid, it is undesirable to allow the Right to be exercised for a long period of time. If there exists a reasonable cause for the Party retain such profit, it is necessary to make the prescription period short. This paper suggests creating article 64-2 of the Commercial Code ( extinctive prescription of the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in business transactions) which contains aforementioned details. A new legislation should be introduced after active discussions based on such revised draft.