1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

On March 26, 2016, a person without name (hereinafter referred to as "person without name") was asked to purchase one box from the Defendant, a seller of an excessive amount of 75,000 won and one box of an excessive amount of 75,00 won, and was notified of the Defendant's account number.

On March 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,700,000 to the Defendant’s account known by the Nonparty, who was subject to the Nonparty’s deception that the Plaintiff sold the Secondhandmeras.

Around 16:55 on March 27, 2016, the Nonparty deposited KRW 1,625,00,000 to the Defendant by mistake, and thus, the Nonparty was entitled to return KRW 1,625,00 (i.e., KRW 1,700,000 - KRW 75,000) corresponding to the difference between the sales proceeds of the advance payment and the sales proceeds of the advance payment. On the same day, the Defendant trusted the amount of KRW 1,625,00 to the account designated by the Nonparty (this is so-called large account) on the same day.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the entire pleadings, the assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the cause of the claim for judgment, the plaintiff remitted KRW 1,700,000 to the defendant's account by deceiving the non-party. Accordingly, the defendant obtained profits equivalent to KRW 1,70,000 without any legal ground, and thereby the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the same amount.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff incurred damages equivalent to KRW 1,700,000 due to negligence in managing the account even though the Defendant was aware of the Nonparty’s crime.

(Claims for Damages Caused by Unlawful Act). Although there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as to a claim for return of unjust enrichment, if the addressee acquires deposit claims equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee, the remitter shall be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, the unjust enrichment system does not have the legal cause when the gain of the benefiting person’s property was not realized.