1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 49 million to the Defendant from April 24, 2015 to September 8, 2015. 2) Even if the Plaintiff did not lend KRW 49 million to the Defendant, the Defendant leased the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff remitted KRW 12 million to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and as the Defendant transferred the means of access to the Defendant to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant's form C, and the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and only the defendant allowed the form C to use the account under the name of the defendant.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 1 as to the loan claim, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 37 million to the account in the name of C and KRW 12 million to the account in the name of the Defendant over ten times from April 24, 2015 to September 8, 2015. However, it is insufficient to find the fact that the loan contract was concluded on the loan loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the said amount of KRW 49 million or the amount of KRW 12 million that was remitted to the account in the name of the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff is without merit.

B. 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 that causes the account transfer between the remitter and the addressee regarding a claim for return of unjust enrichment, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, the unjust enrichment system is fair in cases where the beneficiary’s property gains have no legal ground.