부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts recognized;
A. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 36.5 million from the Plaintiff’s IBK Bank Account (Account Number 273-067576-04-015) to A’s National Bank Account (Account Number B).
B. The Plaintiff requested and consented to the return of the said money to the Defendant on the ground of an erroneous remittance, but the Defendant set off a guarantee claim against A with the deposit claim amounting to KRW 36.5 million by using the guarantee claim against A as an automatic claim, and rejected the return.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the defendant is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment because the plaintiff transferred it to the plaintiff's employee's error.
3. Determination
A. In a case where a remitter transfers his account to the addressee’s deposit account, barring any special circumstance, a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank shall be established between the remitter and the receiving bank, regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship as a cause of account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank, and it shall be interpreted that the payee has acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the above amount of money
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673 Decided March 24, 2006, etc.). In the event an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the addressee, but the receiving bank does not acquire the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the receiving bank since the receiving bank does not have any profit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007).
Therefore, even if the plaintiff made a wrongful remittance in this case, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff may claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount.