채권이 양도된 후 보상관계가 해제된 경우 부당이득반환청구의 상대방

A judicial judgment determines that the transferee of credit shall be the person with whom a claim for recapture of unjust enrichment is filed when a compensation relationship is terminated after the credit has been transferred. However, this is not coincident with the logic of a precedent about a number of triangle-type unjust enrichment cases for the curtailment of payment. Credit may be transferred for various causes including the curtailment of benefits. The indicated case shows problems of a relationship between a person who has actually contributed his properties, and another who does not have a contract relationship with him; for example, in a case of a claim for recapture of unjust enrichment. However, the transferal of credit is somewhat different from a claim for recapture of unjust enrichment in that credit is transferred without losing its identity while the transferee of credit is not simply a beneficiary, but a new creditor. A contract relationship should be settled between contract parties. A contract relationship between the transferor of credit and the debtor shall not be terminated as soon as credit is transferred, and the settlement of a contract relationship shall remain an issue to be tackled between the concerned parties. Consequently, it is not appropriate that the debtor shall take over an insolvency risk of not the party of a contract, but a credit transferee, due to the cession of an obligation that is not brought about by the debtor. It is because the indicated case is not comparable to the cession of an obligation implemented by the transferor of credit for the sake of the credit transferee, and because the status of a debtor shall not be disadvantaged by the transferee of credit. Therefore, in a case where a compensation relationship is terminated after the credit has been transferred, the recapture of unjust enrichment shall be executed between the parties concerned of a contract, including the transferor and the debtor.