A. Defendant B’s KRW 1,00,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from October 23, 2014 to June 18, 2015.

A. On May 8, 2014, Defendant B believed that the credit rating should be higher in order to obtain a loan. To this end, Defendant B believed that the method of repeating the virtual inputs might be followed, and opened a passbook in his name at the point of Busan, Seodong-gu, Busan, Busan, and opened a cash card at the point of Busan, which was located in Mangdong-gu, Mangsan-ro, and opened it to Kwikset service.

B. On May 12, 2014, Defendant C also heard that the above loans can be granted from the person who was unaware of his name, and opened a passbook in his name at the point of Dong-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, SC Bank, Dong-dong, and opened a cash card, and said card was sent to the person who was unaware of name as Kwikset service.

C. On the other hand, on May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff received a call from a person under whose name the Plaintiff introduced himself as an employee of the Korea Assets Corporation, that “to obtain a loan from agricultural cooperatives with low interest, and must make a loan from an insurance company to enhance the credit rating.” On the other hand, the Plaintiff wired the sum of KRW 10,000,000 to a bank account in the name of the Defendants designated by the said person under the name of the Defendants as shown in the following table.

On May 12, 2014, the bank name account holder on the deposit date, the bank name account number amounting to D 5,000,000 won on May 12, 2014, 201, Defendant CC E5,000,000 won on May 12, 2014 (based on recognition) was not disputed, Party A’s 1, 2, Eul’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1, and E 2, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire arguments.

2. Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship causing account transfer between the remitter and the addressee for judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the remitter has the right to claim return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239 Decided November 29, 2007