2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant A, C, D, E, and F and the remaining claims against the defendant B are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/3 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant and the Plaintiff, A, D, E, and F shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. While Nonparty G was in office as a public official of Grade 6 of local tax affairs at the Hysung-si branch located in Hasung-si, from May 10, 2002 to December 24, 2008, Nonparty G embezzled KRW 1,271,60,810 over 251 times by means of receiving the amount overpaid or erroneously paid from the account in the name of his family or person in the name of his/her member, and embezzled KRW 1,271,60,810 (the details related to the Defendants are the same as the list of embezzlement in the separate sheet of embezzlement); Defendant B’s son, Defendant B, and C, and D’s co-offender, Defendant C, and D’s co-offender 1) upon the request of G for embezzlement, and notified each bank of the above amount of embezzlement and the relevant amount of embezzlement and embezzlement as stated in the account number column as above.

B. G was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years at the first instance court on July 22, 2009 (Seoul District Court 2009Dahap227), and the appeal was dismissed on October 15 of the same year (Seoul High Court 2009Do2026), and the above punishment was finalized on October 23 of the same year as it is. The plaintiff filed for 1,054,920,70 won (the above embezzlement amount 1,271,60, 810 won) (the above embezzlement amount 116,740, 110 won and damages for delay 200, 300 won and damages for delay 20, 400 won and damages for delay 208 J. 16 of the above embezzlement amount (the above embezzlement amount 1,271, 660, 100 won and damages for delay 20, 300,000 won and damages for delay 205 others).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the claim for damages against the Defendants

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, as a joint tortfeasor, shall be held liable for damages for G and B as a joint tortfeasor, because G was aware that it used the bank account in the name of the Defendants in embezzlement, and that part of the amount was involved in G’s embezzlement by being used by the principal until he/she uses it.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants engaged in embezzlement in collusion with G or even have been aware of the embezzlement of G, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this (the Defendant has not been subject to criminal complaint or criminal prosecution due to the instant case). The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendants

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the amount stated in the column of embezzlement (individual) of the attached embezzlement list among the amount embezzled by G deposited in each bank account listed in the account number column in the attached embezzlement statement in the name of the defendants, the defendants should return the above amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment because they obtained profits without any legal ground, and thereby suffered losses from the plaintiff.

2) First, we examine Defendant A, B, and E.

From among the amount embezzled by G, the amount of embezzlement for Defendant A, B, and E listed in the separate embezzlement statement is not subject to dispute between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants, and the amount of embezzlement (individually transferred) in each bank account listed in the account number column listed in the separate embezzlement statement of the said Defendants. The amount of embezzlement for Defendant A, B, and E was also 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 10 won and 10 won were embezzled.

그런데, 일반적으로 부당이득제도는 어떤 사람의 재산적 이득이 법률상 원인 또는 정당한 사유가 없는 경우에 법률이 공평의 관념에 근거하여 이득자에게 그 이득의 반환의무를 부담시키는 것인바, 채무자가 피해자로부터 횡령한 금전을 그대로 채권자에 대한 채무변제에 사용하는 경우 피해자의 손실과 채권자의 이득 사이에 인과관계가 있음이 명백하고, 한편 채무자가 횡령한 금전으로 자신의 채권자에 대한 채무를 변제하는 경우 채권자가 그 변제를 수령함에 있어 악의 또는 중대한 과실이 있는 경우에는 채권자의 금전 취득은 피해자에 대한 관계에 있어서 법률상 원인을 결여한 것으로 봄이 상당하나, 채권자가 그 변제를 수령함에 있어 단순히 과실이 있는 경우에는 그 변제는 유효하고 채권자의 금전 취득이 피해자에 대한 관계에 있어서 법률상 원인을 결여한 것이라고 할 수 없는바(대법원 2003. 6. 13. 선고 2003다8862 판결 참조), 위 피고들이 G으로부터 송금받은 금전을 취득함에 있어 악의 또는 중과실이 있는지의 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제1, 7호증, 갑 제8호증의 1, 2, 갑 제9호증, 갑 제10호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제11호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 제15호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 피고 A는 G의 올케, 피고 E은 G의 친정아버지로서 G이 세무공무원인 사실을 잘 알고 있었고, 피고 B는 G을 주요고객으로 상대로 하고 있는 백화점 매장직원으로서 역시 G이 공무원인 사실을 알고 있었던 사실, 위 피고들에 대한 송금의뢰인은 G 개인의 명의가 아니라 '화성시' 또는 '화성시 출장소'로 되어 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편 앞서 든 각 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① G은 6년이 넘는 기간 동안 251차례에 걸쳐 합계 13억 원 가량의 금원을 횡령하면서도, 이를 원고의 다른 직원 등에게 적발된 적이 없고, 공범인 J를 제외하고는 누구의 도움도 받지 않고 단독으로 앞서 본 바와 같은 계획적인 범행을 저지른 점, ②G의 지인인 피고 B는 G의 씀씀이가 큰 것은 알고 있었지만, 공무원 신분에 과소비를 하는 것이 적발되면 곤란할까봐 차명계좌를 사용하는 것으로 짐작하고 있었던 사실, ③ 특히 피고 B는 별지 횡령내역표 범행일시란 기재 기간 중 '화성시 뿐 아니라 G 개인 명의로 송금을 받은 적도 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 앞서 인정한 사실만으로 G이 원고의 금원을 횡령한 사실을 위 피고들이 알았다거나 또는 그러한 점을 알지 못한 데 중대한 과실이 있다고 보기 어려우므로, 결국 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

3) Next, we examine Defendant C and D.

Of the money embezzled by G, each amount recorded in the column of embezzlement (total sum) for Defendant C and D in the separate embezzlement list is transferred to each bank account listed in the relevant account number column in the separate embezzlement list of the above Defendants. There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the above Defendants.

Furthermore, as to whether the above Defendants actually acquired the above deposited money, the statement in the health care room, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and Gap evidence No. 11-1, 6, 14, and 16, and this Court

Upon the request of J, Defendant C opened an over-the-counter account under its own name and delivered one cash card to J. 1. After receipt of J’s request, Defendant C also delivered the passbook and one cash card to J. 2. On November 27, 2006, G received one cash card from Defendant C and one cash card from the account under its own name and received money from Defendant C to the above account under its own name and received money from Defendant C to 00,000 won from August 2, 2007 (the above bank’s password was known to G at the time of issuance), and then, Defendant C opened the account under its own name and one cash card from 00,000 won to 0,000 won from 0,000 won to 1.6,000,000 won from 0,000 won from 20,000 won from 0,000 won to 1.6,000,000 won from 20,000.

4) Finally, we examine Defendant F’s portion.

Of the money embezzled by G, 63,692,720 won deposited into Defendant F’s Jeju Bank account, there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, if Defendant F obtains the above amount, the entire purport of the pleading is added to the health account, the statement of No. 15, and the fact-finding as to whether Defendant F actually acquired the above amount, the entire amount was deposited into Defendant F’s Jeju Bank account, and if this court’s fact-finding as to the fact-finding branch of the KI Bank, the above amount was deposited into Defendant F’s Jeju Bank account. G transfers the amount overpaid or erroneously, and the money was not used entirely for any other purpose except for partial remittance to G and the Defendant B (the Defendant F’s E’s E’s E’s E’s E’s E’s E’s E’), and there is no counter-proof, it is difficult to view that Defendant F actually acquired the money embezzled by Defendant F to the above Defendant’s account.

On a different premise, the first Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit and without merit. As to Defendant E and B’s claim for loans.

1) The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant E has the obligation to pay KRW 100,000,00,000 lent from Defendant E for the purpose of house repair expenses and KRW 200,000,00,000,00,000, which was lent from Defendant E for the purpose of house repair expenses and automobile purchase expenses, and sought payment of the loan to Defendant E in subrogation of the non-self-sufficient G. However, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant E lent KRW 100,00,00 from Defendant E on the sole basis of each of the evidence Nos. 8-2 and No. 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (i.e., each of the above evidence appears to have given the above KRW 100,00,000 to Defendant E on the ground of the above evidence). The Plaintiff’s claim for this part is without merit.

2) In addition, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 70,000,000 in cash, including withdrawing erroneously paid due to embezzlement as seen earlier to Defendant B, and lending KRW 10,000,000 around December 207 to Defendant B, and lending KRW 10,000 on April 11, 2008 to Defendant B, and lending KRW 50,00,000 in cash as a substitute for payment due to Defendant B’s card in the name of Defendant B instead of Defendant B, Defendant B was obligated to repay the loans of KRW 120,00,000 in total to Defendant B. In so doing, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the loans from Defendant B on behalf of Nonparty who did not have financial ability. Accordingly, from around 0, 100, KRW 101 to 3,15, and KRW 10,000,00 in total, KRW 20,000 in total, KRW 30,000 in domestic financial information center, and KRW 120,000.3.

During several occasions, Defendant B’s loans worth KRW 50,00,000 (G is returned to the account in the name of Defendant B or returned money to the account in the name of Defendant F, and then lent money to Defendant B immediately after it was returned to the account in cash). The sum of KRW 100,000,000,000 by means of credit card payment, etc. is leased to Defendant B without setting the due date. G is currently subject to a four-year sentence of imprisonment, and most of the amount already acquired at the time of this case’s embezzlement was discovered, and is currently insolvent. The Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 1,054,920,70 and delayed payment damages from the date of this case to the date of 200,000,000,000 for each of the above 1,000,000 won, which is 1,000,0000 won and 2,000,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The claim against the defendant A, C, D, E, and F shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges levis

All funds that have received the passbook, cash card, and password of the account and acquired the means of access on the same day, and that have transferred the means of access to G on the same day.

on September 4, 2009, sentenced to a sentence of two-year suspension of the execution of imprisonment on September 6, 2009 (U.S. District Court 2009Sang2648);