부당이득반환등
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,208,980.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,600,000 to the Defendant’s post office account C (hereinafter “instant account”) on two occasions, according to the Plaintiff’s order to transfer stamp, etc. to the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff applied for the suspension of payment to the account in the name of the Defendant immediately after the above remittance.
C. However, the person under whose name the award was not made
B. As stated in paragraph (1), the Plaintiff withdrawn part of the amount from the instant account before the Plaintiff applied for the suspension of payment of the account, and the current account remains in KRW 1,208,980.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of response to the submission of financial transaction information to Korea Post by the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and its judgment on this point asserted that the plaintiff remitted 1,60,000 won to the account of this case, and the current amount of 1,208,980 won to the account of this case remains, so the defendant alleged that 1,208,980 won, which is the balance, was unjust.
Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount through a account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between a remitter and the addressee, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). Furthermore, in a case where a benefiting person’s property gains do not have a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting person based on the principle of equity and justice, and thus, the benefiting person cannot be held liable to return if there is no substantial benefit on the benefiting person.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201). The foregoing Supreme Court Decision 2011
1. As seen in this paragraph, the Plaintiff, who belongs to the name-dissatise, amounts to KRW 1,600,000,000 in the instant account under the name of the Defendant.