1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 71,00,000 in total, including KRW 10,00,000 on May 18, 2007, ② July 13, 2007, ③ August 29, 2007, ④ KRW 10,000,000 on September 19, 207, ⑤ KRW 10,000,000 on September 19, 2007, ⑤ KRW 4.1,000,000 on October 4, 2007, and 6.00,000 on October 23, 2007, as well as KRW 71,00,000 on October 23, 2007, is no dispute between the parties.

In light of the above, the plaintiff lent the above KRW 71,00,000 to the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 71,00,000 with the return of the loan.

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 71,00,00 to the defendant only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 2 (a copy of the re-examination), Gap evidence 4 (Memna), Gap evidence 5 (Memna), and Gap evidence 6 (Memna). Since there is no other evidence to support this, the plaintiff's above loan assertion is rejected.

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant received the above KRW 71,00,000 from the plaintiff to the defendant's agricultural bank account, and without any legal grounds gain profit from the plaintiff's property and caused damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 71,00,000 to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, a bank account holder does not immediately bear the duty of return of unjust enrichment solely on the fact that the money was remitted to the account, but bears the duty of return of unjust enrichment only when it actually gains the money wired to the account when it was in a situation in which it was practically able to control (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 3732, Sept. 8, 201), and subparagraph 2 of Article 2 (Rescept copy of Examination), and subparagraph 6 (Request for Cooperation in Payment of Membership Fee) are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant actually gains the above KRW 71,00,000, which was remitted to the above account under the name of the Defendant, and it is different to recognize that the Defendant gains a substantial benefit.