A. On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff received a telephone and then transferred KRW 9,00,000 to the post office account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant account”) under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant account”) or transferred KRW 9,00,000 to another account on the same day.

B. On January 2014, the Defendant: (a) lent the account from a person who was not a deceased soldier’s name; (b) received printed letters from a person who gave KRW 200,000 or KRW 2,00,000 on a month; and (c) notified him/her of the passbook and cash card connected to the instant account through Kwikset Service.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the court of first instance order to submit financial transaction information to the head of the postal service information center of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The plaintiff's assertion transferred money to the defendant's account by deception of the person who was not entitled to receive the plaintiff's statement. The defendant received money from the plaintiff without any legal ground and has a duty to return it to the plaintiff.

B. In a case where the unjust enrichment of the benefiting party did not have any legal cause, the determination system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party on the basis of the principle of fairness and justice, but if the benefiting party did not have any substantial benefit, the duty of return cannot be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Sept. 8, 201). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have practically accrued the aforementioned remitted money, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, and the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part

3. Determination as to the claim for tort