A. Defendant B’s KRW 15,800 as well as 5% per annum from June 28, 2015 to November 26, 2015.

A. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, name, and passbook number by phone call from a person who misrepresented the special investigation unit of the prosecutor’s office. In order to escape from the suspicion, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, name, and passbook number by accessing the website designated by the person who was not entitled to the above name and entered the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, name, and passbook number. The Nonparty stated that “the amount of the passbook of the installment savings would be at least KRW 50 million, and the Plaintiff would be at least KRW 50,00,00,000 after filing an application for the issuance of an authorized certificate, and the request for the initial transfer of the bank identification number was given by the Plaintiff.” On the same day, the person who was not entitled to the above name credit account transfer from the Plaintiff’s new bank account (hereinafter referred to as “D”) to the Defendant’s account under the Plaintiff’s name, and then withdrawn KRW 60,000,000 from the above community credit cooperatives account.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the result of the response to the order to submit financial transaction information to community credit cooperatives during this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1) Defendant B’s assertion as to the primary claim is that it acquired KRW 6,00,000, which was transferred from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and thus, return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) Although there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as the cause of account transfer, if the addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the payee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007).