부당이득반환
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 2.
On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) heard that it is possible to lend KRW 79 million from the Korea Asset Management Corporation from a person who misrepresented the NAF lending staff to the Korea Asset Management Corporation; and (b) visited the Internet homepage of the Korea Asset Management Corporation to join the Committee; and (c) visited the website and became a member.
B. However, since long, the name-free persons contacted the Plaintiff, and caused the error in joining the Plaintiff, the account number, password, and theOTP number necessary for the Plaintiff’s Internet banking was known to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the name-free persons of the above-mentioned matters.
C. On December 27, 2016, at least 11:11 on December 27, 2016, the person whose name was omitted transferred KRW 45 million from the new bank account (D) in the name of the Plaintiff to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Defendant B (E). On the same day, around 14:22 on the same day, the person transferred KRW 17.8 million from the above new bank account in the name of the Plaintiff to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant C (F) and transferred KRW 17.8 million over four occasions.
On the other hand, Defendant B received the call from a person who misrepresented the Nong employee of the Agricultural Cooperative who was in need of money and paid the money to the person who was unaware of his name, with the words “it would have been deposited in the name of the Plaintiff.” However, since the Plaintiff’s loan is not a loan to Defendant B but a loan to Defendant B was erroneously remitted, the money would be exempted from returning the money in accordance with the direction of the bank staff in the name of the non-person who visited.”
E. Defendant C received a loan guide call from an unqualified person on the date of 2016, and notified his account number to him, and his nameless person.