beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,823,741 as well as 5% per annum from October 11, 2019 to April 22, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 2019, the Plaintiff received a demand for payment of customs clearance fees in lieu of a monetary reward from a person who misrepresented the U.S. military officer, and thereafter remitted total of KRW 67,800,000 to the account in the name of the Defendant, known to the person who did not receive the name, on October 11, 2019.
B. As above, part of the money deposited into the account under the name of the Defendant was deposited several times from October 11, 2019 to October 13, 2019, and the balance remaining in the current account is KRW 24,823,741.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the fact-finding results on the Chief of Gyeonggi Police Station of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff remitted 67,80,000 won to the account under the name of the defendant by deceiving the person who was not entitled to the statement. Accordingly, the defendant acquired a profit equivalent to the same amount without any legal ground. Since the defendant suffered the same amount of damages, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of 67,80,000 won as unjust enrichment return and the damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between a remitter and an addressee exists, the remitter may obtain a claim for return of unjust enrichment from the addressee. However, the unjust enrichment system imposes a duty of return on the beneficiary based on the principle of fair justice in cases where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground. Thus, if the benefiting party does not actually belong to the benefiting party, the obligation of return cannot be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007; 2010Da37325, 37322, Sept. 8, 2011). 2) As to the instant case, the health account holder and the amount transferred to the account under the name of the Defendant was transferred from the date of the Plaintiff’s transfer.