A. On September 8, 2011, the Defendant granted a loan to a person who was unaware of his name, and issued a passbook, cash card, password, and a copy of resident registration certificate under the name of the Defendant to the above person.

B. On September 9, 201, the Plaintiff received a call from an unqualified person who misrepresented a female inspection to check whether the Plaintiff’s bank account was used in a fraudulent case, and transferred KRW 6,000,000 to the Defendant’s name bank account from the Nonghyup’s name to the Defendant’s name bank account as ordered by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “this case’s Bosing crime”). (c)

The money transferred by the Plaintiff as above remains 5,000 won as of the date of the closing of argument in this case to the above national bank account, because most of the money transferred by the Plaintiff was immediately withdrawn through a person without his name.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-4 and 5-5, the result of the submission of financial transaction information to the National Bank of the first instance court, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff transferred KRW 6,00,000 to the citizen bank account in the name of the defendant, because it belongs to the crime of Bophishing in this case by a person who has failed to obtain the name, and the defendant has a duty to return to the plaintiff the money equivalent to the balance since the defendant made unjust enrichment with respect to the deposit claim corresponding to the balance remaining in the above account without any legal cause, and the defendant has a duty to return the money to the plaintiff, and ② as to the sum withdrawn from the above account by the person who has failed to obtain the name, the defendant was involved in the defendant's delivery of the passbook, cash card, and password in order to prevent the crimes of Bophishing in this case. Thus, as joint tortfeasor under Article 760 of the Civil Act, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor. Thus, the defendant is liable

3. Determination

A. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment