1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff against the conjunctive claim amounting to order payment below.

The Plaintiff asserted as to the primary claim. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,000,000 in total from October 26, 2016 to November 17, 2016 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant. The Defendant acquired the said money without any legal cause.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above money to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Judgment

According to the evidence evidence No. 2, the plaintiff deposited KRW 5,00,000 on October 26, 2016 in the account under the name of the defendant, KRW 1,000,000 on November 9, 2016, and KRW 4,000,000 on November 17, 2016, respectively. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the above KRW 10,00,000 was actually reverted to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the conjunctive claim is that the Defendant mistakes C, who is the Defendant’s birth, entered into an agricultural trade contract with C under the name of the Defendant, and paid KRW 10,000,000 in total to the account under the name of the Defendant from October 26, 2016 to November 17, 2016.

However, C does not supply the remaining agricultural products with only the agricultural products equivalent to 2,250,000 won around November 19, 2016.

On the other hand, the defendant is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act because he lent his name to C to allow it to operate his business in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return advance payment of KRW 7,750,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

Judgment

In the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 provides that ① the Defendant’s Dong C used the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, address, and account under the Defendant’s name while engaging in the transaction of agricultural products with the Plaintiff; ② the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s name transfer; ③ the Defendant’s deposit account was opened in advance and the person who mainly used the said account was revealed.