1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts A entered the C Center of the Plaintiff Company on January 1, 2011 and took charge of personal injury compensation for traffic accidents.

The defendant is the mother of A.

A entered a person who is not the actual victim in connection with a traffic accident that he/she has taken charge of, and processed as if he/she pays the agreed amount and treatment expenses as if he/she would be paid them, and acquired the money of the plaintiff by using various means, such as acquiring them, and the total amount of the money has reached KRW 192,587,000 in total over at least 240 times from March 7, 2014 to December 24, 2015.

A made the insurance money acquired through the above method to be deposited into the financial institution account in the name of the defendant, and the amount of the insurance money was 171,837,404 won in total over 240 times during the period of the above crime (=total of 67 times in total of 113,789,00 won in total of 173 times in total of 173 times in total of 58,048,404 won).

The account in the name of the defendant, in which the insurance money acquired by fraud was deposited, is in total four. ① The account in the name of the defendant was ① AFFFC (hereinafter referred to as “CF”) and ② The AFFC account E (hereinafter referred to as “CF”). ③ The AFF account in the AFFF (hereinafter referred to as “CFF”) and ④ Daegu Bank G (hereinafter referred to as “TFF account”) in the name of the Daegu Bank.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 6, 7 evidence, Eul's 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff primarily asserts the defendant's responsibility to return unjust enrichment.

A The entire amount deposited in the Defendant’s financial institution account after acquiring the Plaintiff’s money for the purpose of paying insurance money falls under unjust enrichment in relation to the Plaintiff and must be returned.

It should be seen that the transaction of deposit and withdrawal from each of the above accounts in the name of the defendant was conducted entirely under the control and recognition of the defendant. In addition, it is so because A and the defendant are mother and child dead.

For the above argument, the account transfer between the remitter and the addressee is based on the legal principle.