1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and ancillary claim against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 2013, the Defendant opened an online general account (T) with the Saemaul Depository located in the Dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City.

B. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed 25,000 won from a deceased soldier’s name in the first instance court’s name (NN) to 3.98% of the interest accrued from Hyundai Capital and the 25,000,000 won. Once intending to obtain a loan, the Plaintiff received a telephone call that “the remittance of 200,000 won with the bond guarantee securities fee.” Once she received a loan, the Nonparty provided the Plaintiff with money for the expenses incurred in connection with stamp, deposit, payment, insurance premium, self-payment, deposit, refund, etc. on a yearly basis. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff wired 6,10,000 won in total to the account of the above community credit cooperative in the name of the Defendant, including the Defendant, at one or several times, the same amount as the amount entered in the account in the name of the co-defendant in the lower court, including the Defendant, including the amount of damages list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Gap evidence 15-12 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's primary claim is based on the plaintiff's assertion, and the defendant gains profit from the amount equivalent to the deposit claim that the plaintiff remitted to the account under the name of the defendant without any legal ground and thereby causes damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff should return the amount equivalent to the above deposit claim to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) When the remitter transferred the money to the bank account of the payee, regardless of whether there is a legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank as the cause of the account transfer exists, the deposit contract equivalent to the amount of the account transfer between the payee and the receiving bank is established and the receiving bank acquires the above amount of deposit claim against the receiving bank. In this case, there is no legal relationship that causes the account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank.