부당이득금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the facts stated in Gap evidence No. 1, which is the premise of the dispute, the fact that KRW 5,00,000,000 was transferred to the new bank account (C) in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant, from the Hachip Agricultural bank account in the name of the plaintiff, can be acknowledged. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23720, Feb. 29, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 23720, Feb. 29, 2012>
2. As to the instant lawsuit seeking the return of the amount of money transferred by account transfer to the Defendant based on unjust enrichment return, the Defendant’s aforementioned account transfer is a monetary transaction between D (the Plaintiff’s mother) and E (the Defendant’s father), and the instant lawsuit was filed against the Defendant, who is not a party to the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant’s standing to be admitted.
In a lawsuit for performance, the defendant's standing to be a defendant in a lawsuit for performance is replaced by the plaintiff's own claim, and such judgment is absorbed into the propriety judgment of the claim, so the person alleged as a performance obligor is a legitimate defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). Thus, the defendant's main safety defense is without merit.
3. Judgment on the merits
A. (1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment (1) was known to the effect that E was admitted to the accounts of the Defendant and caused the Plaintiff to remit KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant’s account. Since E did not have joined the accounts operated by D, the Defendant must return the aforementioned remittance amount to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.
(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, it is recognized that Eul would have subscribed to 5,00,000 foot 10,000 foot 10,000 won in total to the new bank account under the name of the defendant designated by Eul, and that Eul did not fully pay the money thereafter.
However, the unjust enrichment in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that it has been acquired without any legal cause refers to a real benefit. In full view of the fact that there is no dispute and the purport of the testimony and the whole pleadings of the witness E of this court, 10,000.