beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim added in the trial is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
3. The primary description; and
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. Although there is no legal relationship that causes the account transfer between the claimant and the payee, in a case where the payee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the payee. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the plaintiff is obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount of the money deposited to the defendant C, since the non-person who received the money deposited after opening the plaintiff's account in the name of the plaintiff under the direction of the above non-person who received the above non-name transfer from the above account to the defendant C.
B. In a case where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer through a account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between a remitter and the addressee, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007; 2007Da66088, May 27, 2010). Meanwhile, in a case where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party on the basis of the principle of fairness and justice, and is not subject to the duty of return unless the benefiting party has a substantial benefit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201, etc.). On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 17,000 from his/her own account to Defendant B’s account, and on the same day.