양도담보 목적물 사이의 부합과 부당이득

This article attempts to clarify the unjust enrichment questions raised by a decision handed down by the Supreme Court on April 2 2016. In the case, a cargo pump transferred to the claimant for security was combined to a ship in the making which was transferred to the defendant for security. May the claimant demand a compensation from the defendant based on unjust enrichment? The Supreme Court denies it on the ground that the “real enrichment” did not accrue to the defendant, but to the debtor who had transferred the defendant the ship’s ownership for security. Some commentators support the decision, insisting the ownership transferred for security should be treated not as ownership per se, but as security interest. The author disagrees with the explanation and shows the opposite is true. The defendant was enriched by the combination, if one follows the established doctrine of unjust enrichment and ownership transferred for security. The result is the same, even though the ownership transferred for security is to be treated as security interest. The opinion supporting the Supreme Court can not only base itself on the Civil Code, but ignores the security function of the transferred ownership. The conclusion is also justified by the Supreme Court’s precedent, according to which the unjust enrichment claim due to lost ownership should be a replacement remedy for the lost rei vindicatio.