A Study on the Attachment of Chattel mortgage and Unjust Enrichment

Abstract

The issue of the target judgment boils down to whether, when the subject matter of the movable transfer security is attached to the other matter of he movable transfer security, the transfer security creditor who has lost ownership can claim the return of unjust enrichment against the owner or the transfer security creditor. There is a lot of controversy in academic theories and precedents regarding the position of the target judgment. This is because the position of the target judgment based on fairness and validity is causing considerable conflict with the existing legal principles regarding the return of unjust enrichment. Therefore, in this paper, how to understand the legal nature of the movable transfer security right, and then, if the object of the movable transfer security right is attached, how will be determined who is obligated to return the unjust enrichment. The purpose of this study was to examine the legal principle of return of unfair profits for the right to claim compensation, and the subject of actual gains according to compliance, in respect of the legislative purpose of the return of unfair profits system, which is to adjust unfair movement of goods based on the notions of justice and fairness. The ruling appears to have reached a conclusion considering the aspects of equity and substance. However, despite the fact that the concept is not easy to grasp due to its abstractness and ambiguity, it has been brought to the fore and established in the past on unfair enrichment. It may be said that this conclusion is difficult to accept, as it creates a contradiction or conflict in legal principles. In particular, if the debtor becomes incapacitated before or after the object of transfer security is satisfied, it is considered difficult to accept the conclusion of the subject judgment in that it may lead to unreasonable results in the interests of each transfer security creditor and the debtor. Taking the above points into consideration, it seems reasonable to consider that the entity to which the actual profits belong is the transfer secured creditor, as in the original trial. In any case, I would like to conclude this article with the hope that there will be more reasonable precedents and discussions related to this.