부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On January 14, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) received a telephone from a person under a false name who misrepresented himself/herself as an employee of the E Bank; (b) “A person may obtain a substitute loan at a low interest rate if he/she has repaid an existing loan and received a new loan from Capital; and (c) thereby, on January 14, 2019, remitted the amount of KRW 5 million to the F Association account (G) account in Defendant B’s name; and (d) KRW 30 million to the H Bank account in Defendant C’s name (I); and (e) KRW 10 million to the J Bank account in Defendant D’s name (K) thereby suffering from fraud.
(hereinafter “this case’s Bophishing Fraud”). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The primary assertion and the Defendants, despite the absence of legal grounds such as the payment of the above amount, acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount by account transfer. As such, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment corresponding to the above amount against the Defendants. 2) The primary assertion that the Defendants, by deceiving the Plaintiff, stolen the money from the Plaintiff, or by providing the account for receiving the attempted crime as an essential element in the crime of Bosphishing, thereby aiding and abetting the illegal act. Thus, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the damages against the Defendants due to the illegal act.
B. Defendant B’s assertion that the Defendants had the same loans as the Plaintiff was merely the fraudulent offender’s false statement of the fraud, and did not acquire unjust enrichment or take part in the tort.
Defendant C only lent a deposit passbook to a person who needs to exchange money in the Philippines, and did not have taken part in the crime of Bosing fraud or obtained unjust enrichment.
Defendant D was engaged in money exchange transactions with L in the Philippines, and was in the Defendant’s deposit account.