은행예금청구채권부존재
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. On May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant A’s claim for the refund of KRW 5,203,00 against the Defendant A’s Industrial Bank of Korea did not exist, since the Plaintiff, in the course of remitting the amount of goods to the customer around 15:40 on May 9, 2018, erroneously remitted the amount of KRW 5,203,00 to the Defendant A’s Bank account (B) by mistake on the account number.
2. In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, “the benefit of confirmation” is recognized when a party’s right or legal status is in danger and removal thereof is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment. Thus, filing a lawsuit for confirmation even though a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought, barring any special circumstance, does not constitute “the benefit of confirmation” against the economy of the lawsuit, barring any special circumstance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da1264 delivered on October 11, 1991). In addition, in a case where a remitter enters into a deposit account of an addressee in accordance with the basic terms and conditions of deposit and enters into a deposit account with the deposit ledger, barring any special circumstance, a deposit contract equivalent to the above deposit amount between the remitter and the receiving bank is established, regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, which is the cause of the fund transfer, and the payee acquires a deposit claim against the receiving bank equivalent to the above deposit amount.
In addition, even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as the cause of the account transfer, in cases where the addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount by account transfer, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da207286, Oct. 15, 2014). In this case, even if the Plaintiff erroneously remitted money to the Defendant A’s account by mistake, the amount deposited between the Defendant A and the Defendant is equivalent to the amount deposited by the deposit ledger.