Attorney Son Heung-soo gave a presentation on "Whether the Doctrine concerning a Claim for Restitution of Unjust Enrichment after Finalization of a Distribution Schedule by a Person Who Did Not Receive a Distribution in Auction Proceedings Applies to a Distribution Disposition in Forced Collection (Disposition for Arrears) Proceedings" at the 2026 Summer Academic Conference of the Korean Society of Civil Execution Law, held on June 20, 2026, in the conference room on the 16th floor of the Supreme Court of Korea with the support of the Judicial Policy Research Institute.
The presentation was based on a case handled by Attorney Son through all three levels of court proceedings.
In the case, the plaintiff, a provisional attachment creditor, did not file a request for distribution within the distribution request deadline under the National Tax Collection Act. Nevertheless, the plaintiff argued that because the presumptive validity of a distribution disposition does not extend between private creditors, just as in civil execution proceedings, where a creditor entitled to receive a distribution does not receive it and a person with no right to receive a distribution receives it, the legal relationship must be capable of being settled through a claim for the restitution of unjust enrichment, and filed a claim for the restitution of unjust enrichment against the institutions that received distributions in the distribution proceedings.
In response, the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim based on the doctrine of the presumptive validity of administrative dispositions. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and granted the plaintiff's claim, holding that, since forced collection (disposition for arrears) proceedings are similar to civil execution proceedings, the doctrine concerning unjust enrichment after the finalization of a distribution schedule should apply in the same manner.
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment, holding that, since the plaintiff had not duly filed a request for distribution within the distribution period, the plaintiff could not bring a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment unless a material defect existed.
Attorney Son explained in his presentation that, in light of the origins and characteristics of forced collection proceedings, it cannot be denied that distribution proceedings constitute an administrative disposition. Accordingly, with respect to a distribution disposition in forced collection (disposition for arrears) proceedings, an action for revocation of the distribution disposition may be brought where the defect is not material, whereas a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment may be brought only where there is a material defect rendering the disposition void. A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment cannot be brought directly, as in civil execution proceedings, merely because a creditor entitled to receive a distribution did not receive one and a person not entitled to receive a distribution received one.
The presentation will be revised and supplemented and is scheduled to be published in a journal issued by the Association of Korean Civil Judgement Enforcement Law.
