Unjust Enrichment Claim Lawyer
Unjust Enrichment Claim Lawyer | What you need to prove, and how to get your money back
Unjust enrichment occurs when a person receives a benefit — money, property, or the use of something of value — without any legal basis, causing a corresponding loss to another person. Under Korean law, the person who benefited must return the gain, and in some cases pay interest, once the claimant proves the benefit, the loss, the causal link between them, and the absence of legal grounds (민법 제741조). These disputes range from a simple mistaken bank transfer to complex disputes over rent, deposits, overpaid wages, or benefits received under a contract that is later found void or rescinded.
Unjust Enrichment Claim | What You Must Prove to Win an Unjust Enrichment Claim
A claim for return of unjust enrichment succeeds only if four elements are established under Article 741 of the Civil Act (민법 제741조). Courts examine each element separately, and a case often turns on just one of them — usually whether there was truly 'no legal cause.'
The defendant must have obtained something of economic value — money, property, a discharged debt, or the use of an asset. This is usually the easiest element to prove with bank records, contracts, or registry documents.
Your loss does not need to be identical in form to the defendant's gain, but there must be a recognizable link, such as money leaving your account or property being used without your consent. Courts look at whether the loss and the gain stem from the same underlying event.
The benefit received by the defendant and the loss suffered by the claimant must arise from the same transaction or event. Where money passed through several parties, tracing this causal link is often the most contested part of the case.
This is where most litigation is concentrated. If a contract, statute, or prior judgment justified the transfer, there is no unjust enrichment even if the outcome feels unfair. Typical scenarios include a contract later declared void or rescinded, an overpayment made by mistake, or performance rendered under a contract that never actually existed (민법 제741조).
Exceptions That Can Bar Recovery
Even if all four elements are met, the law denies a refund in certain situations: if you paid knowing there was no legal obligation, you generally cannot demand it back (민법 제742조), and if the payment was made to satisfy an obligation contrary to good morals or social order, the law may bar you from recovering it entirely (민법 제746조). These provisions are frequently raised as defenses, so anticipating them early shapes how the claim should be framed.
Unjust Enrichment Claim | Evidence and Strategy in Common Unjust Enrichment Scenarios
Unjust enrichment claims look simple on paper but often involve difficult evidentiary questions about intent, tracing of funds, and the scope of what must be returned. The following scenarios come up most often in practice.
Mistaken bank transfers and misdirected payments
When money is sent to the wrong account, the recipient generally must return it even if they did nothing wrong, because holding money transferred by mistake without legal cause is itself the enrichment (민법 제741조). Disputes usually arise when the recipient has already spent the funds or claims they were owed the money for an unrelated reason, which shifts the fight to proving what the payment was actually for.
Void or rescinded contracts and restitution of what was exchanged
When a contract is voided — for example due to fraud, duress, or a party lacking capacity — both sides must return what they received under it, since performance rendered under a nonexistent legal relationship becomes unjust enrichment (민법 제741조). The contested issue is often not whether restitution is owed, but how to value benefits that cannot be returned in kind, such as services already performed or property that has since decreased in value.
Overpaid wages, rent, and deposit disputes
Employers seeking to recover overpaid wages, or tenants and landlords disputing deposit balances after a lease ends, frequently rely on unjust enrichment when there is no separate contractual clause covering the overpayment. These cases often turn on documentation — pay stubs, lease terms, and account statements — to establish the exact amount that exceeds what was legally owed.
Good faith vs. bad faith recipients and the scope of what must be returned
How much must be returned depends on whether the recipient knew, at the time, that they had no right to the benefit. A recipient acting in good faith only has to return the benefit as it currently exists, while a recipient acting in bad faith must return the full original benefit plus interest (민법 제748조). Proving the recipient's state of mind at the time of receipt is often the deciding factor in how much is ultimately recovered.
Unjust Enrichment Claim | From Initial Consultation to Final Judgment or Settlement
The lawyer reviews bank records, contracts, messages, and any other documentation to identify which of the four elements are strong and which will be contested, and estimates the amount that can realistically be claimed.
A formal demand letter is often sent first, both to preserve evidence of the claim and to test whether the other side will return the benefit voluntarily, which can resolve the matter without a lawsuit.
If there is a risk the other party will dispose of assets before judgment, a provisional attachment (가압류) on their bank accounts or real estate can be filed to secure future enforcement.
The complaint sets out the benefit, the loss, the causal link, and the absence of legal cause, supported by documentary evidence; the case then proceeds through pleadings, evidence submission, and hearings before the civil court.
Many cases settle at some point during litigation once the evidence is laid out; if the case goes to judgment and the other side still does not pay, the judgment can be enforced against their assets.
Unjust Enrichment Claim | How Legal Fees Are Calculated for These Cases
Typically set based on the claimed amount and the complexity of tracing the benefit and loss, rather than a flat rate, since evidentiary difficulty varies widely between a simple mistaken transfer and a multi-party contract dispute.
Often structured as a percentage of the amount actually recovered, whether through settlement, judgment, or enforcement, and is discussed and agreed with the client before filing.
Filing fees and stamp duty are calculated based on the amount claimed in the complaint and are paid separately from attorney fees, in accordance with court fee schedules.
If a provisional attachment is necessary to secure the claim, additional costs apply for the application and any security deposit or bond required by the court.
If the losing party does not pay voluntarily after judgment, separate costs arise for compulsory enforcement procedures against their bank accounts, wages, or real estate.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Unjust Enrichment Claim | Self-Check Before You File
1️⃣ For the Party Seeking Return of the Benefit (Claimant)
- Can you show a specific benefit the other party received — a sum of money, an asset, or a discharged debt?
- Can you document your own corresponding loss with bank records, receipts, or contracts?
- Is there a clear link between what you lost and what they gained, or did the money pass through several parties?
- Was there ever a contract, court order, or statute that could justify the transfer, even one that was later voided?
- Did you make the payment knowing you had no legal obligation to do so?
2️⃣ For the Party Being Asked to Return a Benefit (Respondent)
- Did you have a contract, invoice, or prior agreement that justified receiving the payment?
- Have you already spent or consumed the benefit, and if so, can you show you acted in good faith at the time?
- Is there evidence the claimant knew there was no obligation when they paid, which could bar their claim (민법 제742조)?
- Could the underlying transaction be considered contrary to good morals or social order, which may limit the claimant's right to recover (민법 제746조)?
3️⃣ Before Filing a Lawsuit
- Have you sent a formal demand and kept a record of the other side's response, or refusal to respond?
- Is there a real risk the other party will transfer or hide assets before a judgment is enforced?
- Have you calculated the exact amount claimed, including any interest for the period the benefit was withheld?
- Have you gathered all bank statements, contracts, and correspondence relevant to the transaction?
