A. Defendant B: (a) KRW 22,820,000 and the annual rate from October 6, 2014 to April 1, 2015; and (b) April 2, 2015.

A. On October 6, 2014, around 11:00, the Plaintiff entered his/her financial information, etc. by accessing a fake public prosecutor’s office’s website after receiving the phone of a person who was misrepresented to the prosecution.

B. In using this information, the person under whose name the Plaintiff was named was named: (a) from the SBI Savings Account in the name of the Plaintiff to the Busan Bank Account in the name of the Defendant B; (b) KRW 5.7 million to the Busan Bank Account in the name of the Defendant B; and (c) KRW 5.7 million to the New Bank Account in the name of the Defendant B; and (b) KRW 5.72 million to the Busan Bank Account in the name of the Defendant B; and (c) KRW 5.5 million to the Defendant C’s Postal Account in the name of the Defendant C; and (d) KRW 5.5 million to the Han Bank Account in the name of the Defendant C; and (e) KRW 5.3 million to the Busan Bank Account in the name of the Defendant E’s Busan Bank (M); and (e) million to the New Bank Account in the name of the Defendant F (N).

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B, C: Defendant D, E, and F who made a confession; the absence of dispute; evidence Nos. 1 through 3-6; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where the remitter of the primary claim against Defendant B and C has transferred the account to the addressee’s saving account, the deposit contract equivalent to the amount of the account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank is established, regardless of whether there exists the legal relationship between the remitter and the payee, and the payee shall obtain the deposit claim equivalent to the above amount from the receiving bank.

In this case, even if there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the payee as the cause of the account transfer, if the payee acquires the deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount by account transfer, the remitter has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the payee.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). The Plaintiff received each remittance from the Defendants to their own account without any legal cause, and obtained profit, and the Plaintiff suffered loss therefrom. As such, the Defendants made unjust enrichment.