1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff sent 930,000 won from the account under the name of the Defendant to the account under the name of the Defendant in order to transfer the high interest rate to the low interest rate, and received a call from another company to deposit KRW 930,000, as it should be rejected and transferred from another company.

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff received a call from an account under the name of the Defendant to deposit a loan of KRW 800,000 in addition to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and transferred KRW 800,000 from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the Defendant’s name.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant acquired KRW 1,730,000, which the plaintiff deposited into the account under the name of the defendant without any legal ground (=930,000,000). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,730,000 to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

B. In a case where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship causing the account transfer between a remitter and an addressee, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount to the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 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 is deemed to impose the duty of return on the benefiting party on the basis of the principle of equity and justice, and it is difficult to impose the duty of return on the benefiting party unless the benefiting party has a substantial interest.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201). C.

Judgment

The result of the order to submit financial transaction information to Korea Post by the court of first instance is insufficient to recognize whether there is any benefit that has been actually reverted to the defendant or the amount thereof, and otherwise recognize it.