부당이득금
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 4, 2019, Defendant B received contact from the nameless winners who introduced himself/herself as a staff member of the bank (hereinafter referred to as “defluent winners”) that a low interest rate loan could be possible. On October 11, 2019, Defendant B heard that he/she should create a transaction performance from the needy, and issued a copy of the passbook and a e-mail card, and issued the above e-mail card to the needy.
B. On October 4, 2019, Defendant C received contact from the Buddhist who introduced himself/herself as a staff member of a bank, to the effect that a loan can be made, and on October 7, 2019, he/she heard the speech that he/she should create a transaction performance from the needy person, and issued his/her DNA bank account (hereinafter “Defendant C account”) and notified him/her of the password of the said physical card.
C. On October 4, 2019, the Plaintiff returned 24,000,000 won to Defendant C’s account on October 16, 2019, respectively, to Defendant C’s account for the purpose of repaying the existing loan from the needy who introduced himself as a staff member of the Bank. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24279, Oct. 11, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 2420, Oct. 16, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 25785, Oct. 16, 2019>
The plaintiff is the plaintiff.
As set forth in paragraph (1), the money remitted to each account under the name of the Defendants was withdrawn by using each physical card that received in advance.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return the amount that the plaintiff remitted to each account under the name of the defendants because it was unjust enrichment. However, the plaintiff did not withdraw the amount that the plaintiff remitted to each account under the name of the defendants and acquired. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
(b) assist in tort.