[2] The case holding that where the account transfer from the account of the remitter to the account of the remitter was made without any legal ground, the receiving bank has a duty to return the amount equivalent to the amount deposited from the account of the remitter to the remitter for unjust enrichment

[3] The case holding that where the account transfer from the remitter's account to the payee's account was made without any legal ground, the remitter cannot file a lawsuit against a third party even if the payee's creditor executes the seizure of the above deposit claim

[2] The case holding that, in case where the account transfer to the account holder's account was made without any legal ground, the payee cannot be deemed to have a deposit claim based on the above account transfer, and the receiving bank has a duty to return the money amount equivalent to the money amount deposited from the account holder's account based on the above account transfer to the remitter for unjust enrichment

[3] The case holding that a creditor of the payee cannot file a lawsuit against a third party even if the seizure of the above deposit claim is executed on the ground that it is difficult to view that the remitter has a direct ownership of the deposit claim based on the above account transfer, or he has a right to prevent transfer or delivery of the above deposit claim, in case where the account transfer to the remitter's account holder's account is conducted without any legal ground

2. The defendant Industrial Bank of Korea shall pay to the plaintiff 17,550,000 won with 20% interest per annum from August 23, 2006 to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Labor Welfare Corporation and the National Health Insurance Corporation shall be dismissed.

4. The Plaintiff and Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea shall bear the total costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, and the Plaintiff shall bear the costs of appeal against the Plaintiff’s Labor Welfare

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1 through 12, evidence 13-1 through 3, evidence 14-1 through 4, evidence 15, evidence 15-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, and evidence 2 through 4, respectively.

A. On November 28, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a deposit transaction agreement with the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Bank”) and opened a company free deposit account, and transferred or received money through the said account.

B. The non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation") made a transaction between March 2005 and September 2005 that sells special records, etc. to the plaintiff. The non-party 1 corporation closed its business on November 23, 2005 due to the bankruptcy on October 19, 2005. The above non-party 1 corporation entered into a deposit transaction contract with the defendant bank and opened a company's family account (ordinary account omitted) around November 25, 199.

C. Meanwhile, Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 2”) entered into a deposit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff and opened an ordinary account (i.e., account number) on April 1, 1996.

D. On July 10, 2006, in order to pay the amount of KRW 17,550,000 to Nonparty 2, a business partner, made a wrong entry of the account number due to a mistake in the employees of the Plaintiff’s company, and requested Defendant Bank, the Plaintiff’s creditor bank, to transfer KRW 17,550,000 to the account under the name of Nonparty 1, which was opened in the Defendant bank. The Defendant bank remitted KRW 17,550,000 by means of account transfer (hereinafter “instant remittance”). The Defendant bank transferred KRW 17,50,000 to the head of the deposit account of Nonparty 1 by means of account transfer.

E. Meanwhile, on November 1, 2005, the Defendant bank suspended payment on the account of the non-party 1’s loan delay. On January 6, 2006, the Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation attached the deposit claim (Account Number) held by each of the above non-party 1 company against the Defendant bank on the ground that the amount of KRW 17,518,980 is unpaid on January 6, 2006, and the Defendant Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Corporation attached the deposit claim (Account Number) under Article 6508-31091 on March 28, 2006 on the ground that the amount of KRW 19,34,30 is unpaid on employment and industrial accident insurance premium and KRW 19,330 on March 28, 2006.

F. Before the instant transfer, the Defendant bank did not have any deposit in the Defendant bank account of Nonparty 1, and the Plaintiff asserted to the Defendant bank that the instant remittance was caused by mistake and requested the return of the said remittance, but the Defendant bank rejected the Plaintiff’s request.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff transferred KRW 17,550,00 to the above account under the name of the non-party 1 in the name of the non-party 2 to the order that the employee of the plaintiff company mistakes the account under the name of the non-party 1 in the name of the non-party 2, even though there is no credit and debt relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party 1. In addition, if it is assumed that the above remittance amount constitutes the non-party 1's deposit claim, the defendant bank would recover the plaintiff's deposit claim against the non-party 1, which was impossible to recover due to the plaintiff's deposit claim, and the non-party 1 would be exempted from the plaintiff's deposit claim without any cause, and the plaintiff's claim is unfair because it goes against the concept of fairness and is unfair. Thus, the defendant bank is obligated to return the plaintiff's deposit claim in this case with unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, and thus the execution of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation should not be allowed.

B. Determination on claims against the defendant bank

In this case, the legal relationship on the account transfer between the payee (the "non-party 1 company" means the "the defendant bank" in this case) and the receiving bank (the "the defendant bank" in this case) shall be interpreted reasonably in accordance with the genuine intent of both parties to the deposit contract, and the legal relationship on the account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank (the "Plaintiff" in this case refers to the plaintiff) shall be established in a case where the receiving bank comprehensively consented to the deposit account transfer by the account transfer in advance and the payee comprehensively consented to the account transfer in advance, and the payer shall also have the account deposit claim against the receiving bank in the case where there is a account transfer to the payee's account. However, the above comprehensive consent expression of intent in advance cannot be deemed unlimited, and it shall be presumed that there is no legal relation on the above money transfer between the payee and the remitter, but it shall not be deemed that there is a legal relation on the payee's deposit claim within the due date.

In today's banking practice, deposit settlement has been made mechanically and automatically, and according to the above interpretation theory, the receiving bank must investigate whether there is a cause of remittance between the remitter and the payee who is unrelated to him/her in order to avoid his/her responsibility, and there is a counterargument that it does not fit the actual situation of the bank remittance system and the dynamic safety protection of bank transactions in the modern society where fund transactions are promptly conducted between many people. However, even if the receiving bank withdraws the money to the payee who is the name of the deposit without investigating the cause of the remittance, the receiving bank can be exempted from its repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim, and if the remitter requests the return of unjust enrichment, the receiving bank is a bona fide beneficiary under Article 748 of the Civil Code, and the receiving bank shall be held liable only to the extent that the received profit exists, and thus, it shall not result in an unfair result.

In light of the purport of the argument in this case and the whole statement of evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15, the non-party 1 company can be acknowledged as having been requested to transfer money to the account under the name of the non-party 1 company due to the mistake of the plaintiff's employee in the course of intending to transfer money to the Internet bank to the non-party 2 company as of November 23, 2005 when the plaintiff and the non-party 1 discontinued due to default on October 19, 2005 to the non-party 1 company, even though there was no transaction relation between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, the non-party 1 company cannot be deemed as having a deposit claim based on the above bank account transfer from the plaintiff's bank to the non-party 1, the non-party 2 company, the remitter, the defendant bank, as the plaintiff's defendant 2 had a substantial value equivalent to the amount of money deposited from the plaintiff's account transfer to the plaintiff 20%.

C. Determination on each claim against Defendant Korea Labor Welfare Corporation and National Health Insurance Corporation

In case where the plaintiff has the ownership of the deposit claim of this case, which is the object of the execution of each seizure by the defendant Labor Welfare Corporation and the National Health Insurance Corporation, or has the right to prevent the transfer or transfer of the above deposit claim, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit of objection against the third party of the same contents in this case, and this study examines

As seen earlier, the account transfer of the Plaintiff’s account to Nonparty 1, the remitter, was made without any legal cause and it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 1 had the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Defendant bank. As to the deposit claim on the Defendant bank account number (Omission) of Nonparty 1, the Defendant Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Corporation”) issued an attachment execution as of March 28, 2006, No. 6508-31091, and January 6, 2006, even if the Defendant Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Corporation executed each attachment execution as of January 42, 206, it is merely an attachment execution for a non-existent claim. Thus, as seen earlier, the remitter, the Plaintiff, the receiving bank, has a right to claim the return of unjust enrichment of the amount deposited from the Plaintiff’s account based on the Plaintiff’s above account transfer, apart from the fact that the Plaintiff, the receiving bank, has a direct ownership of the deposit claim against the Defendant bank, the receiving bank of Nonparty 1, or a right to prevent the transfer or transfer of the above deposit claim.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the above Defendants on the premise that the plaintiff has the right to prevent ownership, transfer, or transfer of the deposit claim of this case without any need to examine further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea shall be accepted for the reasonable ground, and each claim against the defendant's Labor Welfare Corporation, the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the National Health Insurance Corporation shall be dismissed for each reason. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea is unfair for the conclusion. Since the part concerning the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea among the plaintiff's appeal is justified for the conclusion, the part concerning the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea among the judgment of first instance shall be accepted, and the part concerning the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea among the judgment of first instance shall be revoked, and the payment of the above amount shall be ordered. The part

Judges Jeong Jin-jin (Presiding Judge) or Kim Chuncheon