2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100,000,000 from the passbook B account opened by the Plaintiff in the Defendant bank to the passbook D account opened by C in the Defendant bank.

B. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order of KRW 100,000,000 with the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2016 tea6091, and was issued a payment order on September 29, 2016, and became final and conclusive by C on October 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Offset against the Plaintiff’s assertion and the judgment-receiving bank’s claim against the payee by mistake in the account of the payee’s loan claims, etc. is an act of taking advantage of the benefits of recovery of claims that the remitter, who was the user of the fund transfer system of public nature, did not have originally anticipated under his sacrifice, and there is no value to be legally protected, contrary to the principle of good faith or abuse of the right to offset.

Since the Defendant did not refuse to return KRW 100,000,000, which the Plaintiff remitted by mistake as set-off against C, the Defendant shall pay KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff as the return of unjust enrichment.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff remitted money to the witness C by mistake only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the testimony of the witness C, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit even if it is no longer examined.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.