1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's ground for the above revocation is against the defendant.

1. The contents to be stated in this part of the basic facts are identical to those of the Plaintiff and the Defendant among the “1. Basic Facts” with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. As to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. In a case where a remitter has transferred his account to the addressee’s deposit account account, it shall be interpreted that a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank is established, regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship between the remitter and the payee, and that the payee has acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the above amount against the receiving bank.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673 Decided March 24, 2006). Therefore, even if there is no legal relationship between a remitter and an addressee as the cause of account transfer, in cases where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer, the remitter is entitled to claim return of unjust enrichment from the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). According to the foregoing facts, according to the foregoing facts, the Defendant acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the amount stated in the “amount of transfer” through the account transfer by means of account transfer as stated in the separate list of the first instance judgment (hereinafter “Defendant account”) among the Plaintiff, even if there is no legal relationship to justify account transfer made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to seek payment of the money equivalent to the above transfer amount and damages for delay by returning the unjust enrichment to the defendant who acquired the above deposit claim.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that he did not gain profit by means of account transfer following the instant Bosing crime. As such, the Defendant considered the allegation that he did not gain profit.