Legal Nature and Requirements of Enrichment Claims under Bills and Checks Law

Complete guide for legal professionals covering enrichment claims under Bills and Checks Law from legal nature to burden of proof. Professional resource visually organizing key concepts including statute of limitations, subsidiarity principle, and benefit acquisition requirements.

1. Introduction and Overview

1.1 Basic Principles of Statute of Limitations and Academic Review

Our legal system provides a clear institutional framework for the extinction of claims by limitation. When the statute of limitations is completed, the debtor is released from debt obligations. However, since the legal provisions simply state that “the limitation period is completed,” interpretation is required regarding its legal effects.

Regarding the meaning of this “completion,” two major academic views are in conflict. The extinction theory, which constitutes the majority, interprets that rights themselves are extinguished upon completion of the limitation period. Conversely, the defense theory, held by a minority, views that the completion of limitation does not mean automatic extinction of rights, but rather grants a defense right to the party entitled to the limitation benefit. Regardless of which view is followed, the debtor’s obligations are released.

1.2 Legislative Purpose and Introduction Background of Enrichment Claims

Article 79 of the Bills of Exchange Act and Article 63 of the Checks Act establish special remedy provisions. Even when rights on bills or checks are extinguished due to procedural defects or completion of limitation periods, holders can demand restitution from issuers, endorsers, and other specific parties within the scope of benefits they have obtained.

The background of this system lies in the special characteristics of bills and checks law. These negotiable instruments are subject to very short limitation periods and strict right preservation procedures, creating high risks for holders to lose their rights due to technical reasons. Enrichment claims were introduced as an equitable remedy to correct such substantial unfairness.

In other words, the legislative intent is to prevent holders’ procedural negligence or short limitation periods from bringing unjust benefits to debtors. The core objective of this system is to correct unbalanced benefit distribution. It stems from the recognition that allowing issuers to obtain unilateral benefits when bill or civil law remedies are completely blocked violates equity principles.

1.3 Practical Importance of Legal Nature Discussion

Although debtors should be released from obligations upon completion of limitation periods for bills/checks rights, recognizing separate enrichment claims raises various views regarding their legal essence.

How the legal nature of enrichment claims is understood determines important practical matters such as conditions for occurrence, legal effects, exercise procedures, and limitation periods differently. Therefore, these theoretical discussions require in-depth examination as they have substantial and significant impacts on the parties involved.

Internationally, theories such as damage compensation claims, unjust enrichment claims, and special forms of enrichment claims have been proposed. Korea’s prevailing theory and precedents classify enrichment claims as unique claims specially recognized by law based on equity principles, namely nominal claims.

1.4 Separation Theory of Causal Relationship and Bills/Checks Relationship

In commercial practice, basic transactions of goods or services (causal relationships) and the delivery of bills or checks for payment (bills/checks relationships) occur separately.

Rights on bills are not identical to rights in causal relationships but are independent rights newly created by bill issuance acts. Since causal relationships and bill relationships are governed by strict separation principles, causal claims and bill claims can be assigned independently, and the validity of bills or establishment of bill rights are not principally affected by the existence or validity of causal relationships.

Enrichment claims have exceptional aspects to this separation principle between causal and bill relationships. Careful analysis is required regarding how the extinction by limitation of either causal claims or bill claims affects other rights, particularly how the extinction by limitation of causal claims or bill claims affects the occurrence of enrichment claims.

According to precedents, enrichment claims can occur only when all bill law and civil law remedies are completely exhausted for bill holders, so the extinction by limitation of causal claims and bill claims has decisive influence on the establishment of enrichment claims.

1.5 Research Purpose and Methodological Approach

This research aims to systematically analyze academic theories and precedents regarding enrichment claims under Bills of Exchange Act and Checks Act to seek practical solutions for related issues.

While highlighting the practical significance of discussions on the legal essence of enrichment claims, we will comprehensively examine positions of academic theories and precedents regarding requirements for occurrence (procedural defects or limitation completion), party structures, right exercise methods, limitation periods, etc.

Additionally, we will thoroughly address the correlation between extinction by limitation of causal claims and bill claims and enrichment claims, the specificity of enrichment claims in cashier’s checks, and major issues in recent precedents.

The scope of research encompasses general theories of enrichment claims and special discussions related to cashier’s checks, centered on the provided materials, with discussions mainly developed around promissory notes.

Although no explicit methodology is presented in this research, considering the material composition and the purpose to “systematically analyze academic theories and precedents to seek solutions,” it can be confirmed that empirical research methods through major literature research and precedent analysis were utilized. This is a general approach in legal research.

2. Analysis of Legal Nature of Enrichment Claims

Although debtors of bills and checks should be released from obligations upon completion of limitation periods for bills or checks rights, recognizing independent enrichment claims raises various opinions regarding their legal essence. The practical benefit of such discussions is that how enrichment claims are legally understood determines occurrence conditions, legal effects, exercise methods, limitation periods, etc., differently, affecting stakeholders.

2.1 Domestic and International Academic Review

Internationally, the following theories are proposed regarding the legal essence of enrichment claims:

• Civil law damage compensation claims theory
• Unjust enrichment claims theory
• Special forms of enrichment claims theory

2.2 Prevailing Theory and Precedents: Special Nominal Claim Theory

Korea’s prevailing theory understands enrichment claims as unique claims specially recognized by law based on equity principles. Such special claims are considered to belong to the category of nominal claims.

According to this view, matters not separately provided for in Bills of Exchange Act or Checks Act are resolved by applying provisions related to nominal claims in civil law.

2.3 Application of Civil Law Nominal Claim Provisions

According to the prevailing theory and precedents that view enrichment claims as nominal claims, the assignment of these rights follows nominal claim assignment methods. However, for cashier’s checks, precedents require following nominal claim assignment methods while also interpreting as granting the power to notify debtors (banks) through check assignment.

Additionally, since nominal claims cannot be subject to bona fide acquisition, enrichment claims are also considered impossible for bona fide acquisition.

2.4 Distinction from Damage Claims and Unjust Enrichment Claims

Enrichment claims are rights specially recognized by law based on equity principles to resolve unfairness that occurs when bill or check actors gain benefits from holders losing rights due to strict procedures and short limitation periods in bill/check right exercise. These are understood as special rights under Bills of Exchange/Checks Act, distinct from general damage compensation claims or unjust enrichment claims in civil law.

2.5 Minority Theory Review (Transformation, Remnant, Revival Theories)

Besides the prevailing theory, there are other views regarding the nature of enrichment claims:

• Bills/Checks Claims “Transformation” Theory: This view sees enrichment claims as transformed forms of existing bill/check claims. This view introduces enrichment claims as “transformations of rights” or uses expressions like “special rights that have undergone transformation.” According to the transformation theory, since enrichment claims are embodied in bills/checks, rights are transferred merely by delivering bills/checks.
• Extinct Bills/Checks Claims “Remnant” Theory: There are also claims viewing them as remnants of extinct bill/check claims. The remnant theory also explains that possession of transformed bills/checks is necessary because enrichment claims are seen as remnants of bill/check rights.
• Newly Revived Rights Theory: There is a view seeing them as rights newly created upon revival in relation to debtors’ benefits simultaneously with the extinction of bill/check rights. In this case, bill/check securities are explained as negotiable instruments embodying newly revived enrichment claims.
• Special Type of Civil Law Unjust Enrichment Claims Theory: Recently, there is a view that sees the enrichment claim system from the perspective of unjust enrichment law functions, viewing it as adjustment for property transfers that cannot receive legal validity, and considers it a special type of civil law unjust enrichment claims.

2.6 Interpretation of Precedents’ “Transformation” Expression

Some Supreme Court precedents have used expressions describing enrichment claims as “(in some sense) transformation of such rights or enrichment claims arising from the extinction of such rights,” giving the impression of viewing them as transformations.

However, precedents consistently maintain the position that the legal nature of enrichment claims belongs to nominal claims granted to rightful holders at the time when rights under Bills of Exchange Act or Checks Act are extinguished due to procedural defects or limitation completion. The same applies to cashier’s checks. Therefore, cashier’s checks whose presentation periods have expired are not negotiable instruments embodying enrichment claims, but have meaning as documentary evidence strongly supporting that holders have acquired or assigned enrichment claims.

In other words, although precedents have used the expression “transformation,” their actual intent is not to view enrichment claims as rights that continue to be embodied in securities through transformation of bill/check rights themselves, but to view them as nominal claims newly arising based on the fact of right extinction.

However, reflecting the circulation reality of cashier’s checks, special interpretations have been made regarding the assignment of these nominal claims. Some recent precedents have been criticized for departing from the intent of existing en banc decisions by emphasizing general theories of nominal claims and requiring perfection requirements.

In summary, while various theories conflict regarding the legal nature of enrichment claims, Korea’s prevailing theory and precedents take the position of viewing them as nominal claims recognized by legal provisions.

3. Analysis of Requirements for Enrichment Claims

Requirements for the occurrence of enrichment claims under Bills of Exchange Act and Checks Act can be divided into content provided in legal provisions and content specified through precedents and academic theories.

3.1 Overview of Legal Provisions

Korea’s Article 79 of Bills of Exchange Act and Article 63 of Checks Act provide that even when rights on bills or checks are extinguished due to procedural defects or completion of limitation periods, holders can demand restitution from issuers, endorsers, and other specific bill actors within the scope of benefits they have received. This specifies the basic statutory causes for the occurrence of enrichment claims.

3.2 Specific Requirements

According to prevailing theory and precedents, the following requirements must be met for enrichment claims to occur:

3.2.1 Prior Existence of Valid Bills/Checks Rights

Enrichment claims are rights that occur when originally valid rights on bills or checks are extinguished by statutory causes. Therefore, as a prerequisite for claim occurrence, valid rights on bills or checks must first exist.

Case of Incomplete (Blank) Bills/Checks: There is discussion about whether enrichment claims occur even when limitation periods are completed or procedural defects arise while bills or checks remain incomplete and unfilled.

Non-recognition due to Absence of Rights (Prevailing Theory/Precedents): Prevailing theory considers that since rights on bills/checks do not exist in incomplete states, enrichment claims are difficult to generate due to the absence of rights to be extinguished. Precedents also deny enrichment claims for blank unfilled bill holders, citing the absence of bill rights at the time of limitation completion.

Recognition Discussion upon Proving Completion Rights (Minority Theory): There are arguments that blank bills are also legally recognized as valid bills from issuance, and recognizing enrichment claims upon proving completion rights would be reasonable from equity concepts. Some views even argue that enrichment claims should be recognized upon proving the existence of completion rights even when requirements other than essential contents like payees are blank. However, this is criticized as providing stronger protection than intended by law and being difficult to recognize as it presupposes states where bill/check rights had not been established.

3.2.2 Extinction of Rights by Statutory Causes

Rights on bills or checks must be extinguished by two statutory causes – defects in right preservation procedures or completion of limitation periods – for enrichment claims to occur. Procedural defects mentioned in Article 63 of Checks Act mainly refer to failure to present within legal deadlines.

Non-occurrence upon Extinction by Non-statutory Causes: When rights on bills or checks are extinguished by other causes such as debt forgiveness, payment, or set-off, issues of enrichment claims do not arise.

Irrelevance of Holder’s Fault in Right Extinction: When rights on bills/checks are extinguished by statutory causes, whether holders have fault does not affect the determination of enrichment claim occurrence requirements.

3.2.3 Absence of Remedial Measures (Subsidiarity Principle)

Enrichment claims arise from the principle that allowing issuers to acquire benefits when all remedial measures under bill law and civil law are absent would be unfair. In other words, enrichment claims are supplementary, ultimate rights when other remedial measures are unavailable.

Academic Conflict: There is academic conflict regarding the scope of this subsidiarity.

• Broadest Theory: Considers it sufficient for rights on checks against the party to be claimed for enrichment to be extinguished.
• Broad Theory (Majority): Considers that rights on checks must be extinguished against all check debtors, not just the counterpart to the claim.
• Narrow Theory: Considers that check holders must lack not only check law remedial measures but also civil law remedial measures.

Precedents’ Position: Precedents consistently take the narrow theory position, considering that enrichment claims occur only when all rights on bills and checks are extinguished and civil law remedial measures are also extinguished. In other words, enrichment claims cannot be exercised if civil law remedial measures (e.g., exercising causal claims) exist.

Occurrence when Causal Relationship Claims Exist: Precedents consider that when causes of bill issuance or endorsement are to secure causal relationship debts, i.e., when causal claims exist, enrichment claims do not occur even if limitation periods for bills or checks are completed. Additionally, they hold that enrichment claims do not occur regardless of whether causal relationship claims are extinguished by limitation or other causes and whether such timing is before or after bill debt extinction.

Criticism of Precedents: Such attitudes of precedents raise questions about the purpose of enrichment claim systems and are criticized as being mere “legal ornaments” presupposing non-existent facts or essentially “making these provisions dead letters.”

3.2.4 Existence of Benefit to the Obligor

Since the purpose of enrichment claim systems is to prevent the occurrence of unbalanced benefits, those bearing restitution obligations must have benefits.

Benefit Determination Criteria: Benefits are considered to exist in those who have gained substantial benefits in causal relationship with the extinction of bill or check debts, and only bill or check debtors bear enrichment restitution obligations.

Scope where Bill/Check Defense Causes are Excluded from Benefits: Regarding the scope of benefits, bill or check debtors can assert against enrichment claim holders the defense causes they could have asserted against those who could have exercised original bill/check rights. Therefore, the scope where such defenses are allowed is excluded from bill/check debtors’ benefits.

3.2.5 Discussion on Holder’s Damage Requirements

Unlike German Bills of Exchange Act, Korea’s Bills of Exchange Act and Checks Act do not require holders to provide consideration for bill/check acquisition and suffer losses when exercising enrichment claims. Supreme Court precedents have also specified that holders’ damages are not required.

However, not requiring holders’ damages would recognize enrichment claims for those who acquired bills/checks without consideration, which raises problems of not conforming to legislative intent to prevent bill debtors from unjustly gaining benefits. There are legislative arguments that requiring holders’ damages would be more desirable.

3.3 Distribution of Burden of Proof

General Cases: Holders claiming the occurrence of enrichment claims must prove facts that bill or check debtors gained benefits by being released from bill or check obligations and the scope of benefits received by debtors. Precedents also take the same view for bills and checks other than cashier’s checks.

Exception for Cashier’s Checks: However, for cashier’s checks issued by banks, since check-issuing banks are presumed to legally hold check funds, exceptions are recognized limited to this part. In other words, that payees (banks) gained economic benefits equivalent to check face values is easily proven by cashier’s checks themselves.

K&P Law Firm has experience winning complex litigation related to enrichment claims under Bills of Exchange Act and Checks Act, and has successfully provided legal advice to clients particularly in cases where enrichment claims for cashier’s checks were at issue.

K&P Law Firm Successful Cases