부당이득금반환등
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) called from a person under whose name the Plaintiff misrepresented the staff of the Prosecutor’s Office to the effect that “it is necessary to investigate whether the Plaintiff is related to a financial crime using the passbook and to prove that the Plaintiff did not engage in money transactions with the offender through the Financial Supervisory Service; (b) accessed the license website via the Internet on the same day according to the instructions of the person under whose name the Plaintiff was not registered; (c) provided the Plaintiff’s financial information; and (d) the said person under whose name the Plaintiff was named transferred KRW 5,872,00 from the Plaintiff’s financial account to the Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H’s account; and (c) KRW 3,020,000 from the Defendant I’s account, respectively.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. (1) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was unjust enrichment amounting to each of their account transfers from the Plaintiff’s account to their own account.
Therefore, the defendants are obligated to return each of the above amounts to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
(2) Even if there is no legal relationship that causes the account transfer between the nominal remitter and the addressee, where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer, the remitter shall be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, in a case where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party based on the principle of fairness and justice, and thus, if the benefiting party does not have a substantial interest, the return obligation cannot be imposed.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, health care units, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, and 3 of the instant case.