A. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from a person who misrepresented with agricultural personnel at around 13:00.

In order to raise credit rating, the person who has failed to know his name should undergo the compulsory repayment procedure for the Plaintiff. After obtaining a loan from another place, the person who has failed to know his/her name made a false statement that his/her credit will rise up when he/she immediately redeems the loan.

Accordingly, the plaintiff was informed of the personal identification number, the account number number, etc. to his/her nameless person.

B. On January 12, 2017, the name-freeist transferred 34 million won from the Plaintiff’s bank account to the bank account under Defendant B’s name on January 12, 2017, and 3.5 million won from January 13, 2017 to the Defendant C’s account.

C. Of the money remitted to the bank account in the name of B, KRW 6 million was deposited in cash, and KRW 27.8 million was transferred to the bank account in the name of B, and all the money was deposited in cash.

3.5 million won transferred to Defendant C’s account was deposited in cash on the day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 11 and 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment 1) The Defendants gain profits equivalent to the amount remitted by the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and the Plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the same amount. As such, Defendant B shall pay KRW 34 million due to the return of unjust enrichment, Defendant C shall pay the amount of KRW 3.5 million, and the delay damages therefrom. 2) Even if there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the payee as to the cause of the account transfer, in case where the payee acquires the deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the payee, the remitter shall have the right to claim return of unjust enrichment

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239 Decided November 29, 2007). However, it is limited to the case.