1. As to the ground of appeal on the primary claim

A. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was practically acquiring the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant, and that the Defendant allowed the Defendant to use his account under the name of the Defendant in his name due to the false statement in the name of the person who was unaware of the name that caused the loan, and that the Plaintiff withdrawn the money that the Plaintiff remitted from the account under the name of the Defendant. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the Defendant was liable to return it as unjust enrichment since the Plaintiff received 6.1 million won from the Plaintiff’s account without any legal ground and suffered losses equivalent to the said amount from the Plaintiff.

B. However, the above determination by the court below is not acceptable.

In case where a deposit contract is concluded through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact is clearly stated in the statement of a real name verification deposit contract, the deposit title holder shall be deemed as the party to the deposit contract, i.e., the right to claim the return of the deposit, unless there is a clear agreement between the financial institution and the contributor, etc. that the deposit contract with the deposit title holder should be excluded from the right to claim the return of the deposit

In addition, when the remitter transfers funds to the bank account of the payee in accordance with the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions and the deposit is recorded in the deposit ledger, barring special circumstances.