부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts of recognition were as follows: (a) the sum of KRW 10,000,000 from the foreign exchange bank account under the Plaintiff’s name to the national bank account under Defendant B’s name on June 12, 2014; (b) KRW 20,000,000 in total to the new bank account under Defendant C’s name on June 13, 2014; and (c) KRW 13,50,000 in total to the Korean bank account under Defendant D’s name on June 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant account transfer”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute over Defendant B: entry of Defendant C and D’s evidence No. 1 in the case of Defendant C and D: entry of evidence No. 1, the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the new bank of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants were involved in loan fraud cases, and Defendant B was obligated to return the above amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, since Defendant C was unfairly acquired KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff, Defendant C was 20,000,000, and Defendant D was 13,500,000.
B. In order for the bank account holder to gain money remitted to the relevant account, there is a reason to believe that the account holder was in a situation where he/she can actually control the deposited money (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37322, Sept. 8, 201). There is no evidence to support that the Defendants knew that the Plaintiff transferred money to each of the Defendants’ respective Defendants’ account and had been in a situation where he/she could actually control it. Rather, according to the evidence mentioned above and the result of this court’s order to submit financial transaction information to our banks, it is recognized that a third party or a name bearer could withdraw the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s bank account to the Defendant’s bank account, and thus, it cannot be said that the benefits accrued from the account transfer of this case actually belongs to the Defendants.
Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the account transfer amount of this case to the Plaintiff.