부당이득금 반환
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 5, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) called “C Company .. Loans available at low interest rates, but at present, with low credit points; (b) however, if a part of the existing loans are repaid, the Plaintiff received a phone call stating “A App sent out to a mobile phone as the credit point is possible to grant a loan; and (c) remitted KRW 6,00,000 to the D account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.”
B. As above, part of the money deposited into the D account under the Defendant’s name was deposited in cash or by card, and as of May 9, 2020, KRW 5,711,617 remain in the said D account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the court's order to submit financial transaction information as of July 6, 2020 against D Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant gains a profit of KRW 6,00,000,000, which was deposited into the D account under the name of the Defendant without any legal ground, and the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, and thus the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6,00,000 as unjust enrichment return and delay damages.
3. In case where a remitter transfers his account to the addressee’s deposit account, regardless of whether there exists any legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as a cause of the account transfer, a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of account transfer between the addressee and the receiving bank shall be established, and the payee shall acquire a deposit claim equivalent to the above amount from the receiving bank.
In this case, even if there is no legal relationship between a remitter and the addressee as the cause of the account transfer, in cases where the addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount by account transfer, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount to the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). Furthermore, the unjust enrichment system is legal.