While selling a Genesis G80 used, the owner, who disguised as a delivery driver at the request of a stranger to get an extra 8.5 million won, ended up losing both the car price and the car.
The Supreme Court's first division (presiding Justice Chun Dae-yup) said on the 27th that on the 16th it reversed a lower court ruling ordering A, who runs a used-car dealership, to deliver a vehicle to a person surnamed Kim and sent the case back to the Daegu District Court in the appeal of Kim's lawsuit seeking delivery of the car.
In Nov. 2023, Kim posted on the used-goods platform Karrot that a 2021 G80 owned by Kim would be sold for 47 million won.
After seeing the post, a person surnamed B, impersonating A, told Kim to bring the vehicle to A's business site. The same day, B contacted A and agreed to sell the G80 for 38.5 million won.
After receiving the vehicle from Kim, A sent 38.5 million won to Kim's account provided by B. B had told Kim in advance, "Because of taxes, when the 38.5 million won is deposited, send it to me. Then I will send you 47 million won." When 38.5 million won was deposited, Kim transferred the money to another account under a different person's name that B had provided.
But B disappeared without sending 47 million won to Kim. Kim went to A and said, "Return the vehicle," but after being refused, filed a lawsuit.
In the first trial, the court ruled that A must deliver the vehicle to Kim if A receives the 38.5 million won in sales proceeds. The first-instance panel said, "Kim intended to sell the car for 47 million won, but A intended to buy it for 38.5 million won, and each negotiated with B," adding, "It is difficult to see that a sales contract was formed."
Kim appealed. The appellate court sided with Kim, saying, "A must deliver the car to Kim." The appellate panel said, "Kim is merely a victim deceived by B," adding, "Imposing a duty of restitution on Kim, who gained no substantive monetary benefit, does not accord with the ideals of fairness and justice."
If the appellate ruling were to be finalized, A, who bought the G80 for 38.5 million won, would lose the car, so A appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with A on the grounds that Kim cannot get the car back.
The Supreme Court cited as grounds that, during the process of the car being transacted, Kim posed as a delivery driver at B's request. B said, "If you want to receive the desired 47 million won, act like a delivery driver," and Kim accepted the request, drove the car to A's business site, and waited nearby.
The Supreme Court determined, "A, as the buyer, took ordinary and general verification measures." By contrast, it pointed out that Kim, to receive a higher sales price, posed as a delivery driver and led A to believe A was engaging in a normal transaction. It then said the lower court's finding that A bears an obligation to return unjust enrichment does not accord with the ideals of fairness and justice.
Regarding Kim being deceived by B into remitting 38.5 million won to a third party's account, it said this was "an unusual and abnormal transaction act involving the risk of receiving neither the car nor the sales proceeds," adding, "This is a circumstance after the sales proceeds had accrued to Kim."