우선 ｢편취금전에 의한 변제｣에서의 부당이득문제에 대한 일본에서의 재판례를 검토하고(II.), 이어서 그에 관련하여 앞서 본 我妻榮의 견해를 포함하여 학설의 추이를 살펴본다(III.). 그리고 마지막으로 위의 맥락문제에 대한 필자 나름의 생각을 간략하게 덧붙이기로 한다 ...

우선 ｢편취금전에 의한 변제｣에서의 부당이득문제에 대한 일본에서의 재판례를 검토하고(II.), 이어서 그에 관련하여 앞서 본 我妻榮의 견해를 포함하여 학설의 추이를 살펴본다(III.). 그리고 마지막으로 위의 맥락문제에 대한 필자 나름의 생각을 간략하게 덧붙이기로 한다(IV.).

This article deals with a famous problem in the Korean law of unjust enrichment. It considers whether and under what condition a debtor, whose debt was paid with money acquired by a wrongdoing, for example, by deceit, embezzlement or theft, either of ...

This article deals with a famous problem in the Korean law of unjust enrichment. It considers whether and under what condition a debtor, whose debt was paid with money acquired by a wrongdoing, for example, by deceit, embezzlement or theft, either of the debtor himself ofr of a third party, will be liable, based on the grounds of unjust enrichment (Art. 741 of the Korean Civil Code), to compensate the same amount to the original source of the money.
This paper, however, does not focus on the proposals for "right" solutions to the problem. Rather it surveys the theory-historical (dogmengeschichtlich)backgrounds of the view now prevailing in Korea. Such an examination will reveal how the predominant view is deeply rooted in the outdated understanding of the unjust enrichment law, which sees its foundation in the "equitable" solutions of various "contradictions" between the legal institutions, and thus desires to make it "superior" to any other positive laws. The article, then, tries to show that the prevailing view is limited in its perspectives by the fact that its main support is derived from the Japanese civil law jurisprudence and court rulings before and in the 1930;s and totally neglects their developments thereafter.
The article suggests that the "right" solutions of this problem could be solved by accepting the totally different understanding of the unjust enrichment law. That is generally known as "typological approach"