beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from August 19, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 10, 2015, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 50,000 from a lending company and transferred KRW 50,000,00 to the Agricultural Cooperatives Deposit Account in the name of the Defendant, which was known by the winners of the same day.
B. At the time that the Plaintiff transfers KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant’s account, the balance was KRW 2,145, and the current balance is KRW 50,002,145 as the Plaintiff did not lose money in the said account after the Plaintiff’s transfer.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence No. 1, Results of an order to submit financial transaction information to the Agricultural Cooperatives of the Republic of Korea, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. When the remitter for determination of the Plaintiff’s claim has transferred the account to the payee’s deposit account, the deposit contract equivalent to the amount of the account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank is established, regardless of whether there exists the legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, and the payee acquires the above amount’s deposit claim against the receiving bank. In this case, even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, in a case where the payee acquired the deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, the remitter shall be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the recipient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). The unjust enrichment system imposes a duty to return such money on the benefiting person on the basis of the principle of fair justice, but is not subject to the duty to return unless the benefiting person actually has a legal interest.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.