부당이득반환 청구의 소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In cases where a deposit contract is concluded through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact is clearly stated in the statement of a real name verification deposit contract, the deposit title holder shall be deemed the party to the deposit contract, i.e., the right to claim the return of the deposit, unless there is a clear agreement between the financial institution and the contributor, etc. that the deposit contract with the deposit title holder should be excluded from the right to claim the return of the deposit
(2) The court below held that the Plaintiff is obligated to return the money that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a party to the instant deposit contract, as the party to the instant deposit contract is the title-holder B, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been delegated the right to withdraw the deposit of the instant deposit account from B, and the Plaintiff’s transfer from the instant account to the Defendant to the Defendant’s account does not constitute a non-debt repayment, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the money that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, as to the confirmation of the party or right holder of the deposit contract, comprehensive delegation related to withdrawal of the deposit,
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.