1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,619,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 11, 2014 to September 1, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff received a call from a person who misrepresented the Seoul Central District Prosecutor to the effect that “A passbook in the name of the Plaintiff established at one bank and agricultural cooperatives is being used as a large passbook at the gambling game site,” and that “The Plaintiff should enter the name and resident registration number of the Plaintiff in the search column of the case at one’s site (the fact is false site) and enter the information required by the said site, as personal financial information can be disclosed to other accounts.”

B. The Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s financial information according to the Plaintiff’s false access to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Site that was filled by the winners of the above name.

C. On March 11, 2014, a person in bad name transferred KRW 8,730,000 from the Plaintiff’s agricultural account to the Defendant’s agricultural and community credit cooperatives account by using the Plaintiff’s financial information discovered as above.

The person who was unaware of the name had most of the above money withdrawn by using the cash card, etc. received from the plaintiff, and some of the remaining money was refunded to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, on March 10, 2014, the defendant transferred his passbook, cash card, password, etc. to the person who was not the party to the name, on condition that he would receive KRW 100,000.

(1) Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole,

2. Determination

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff's decision on the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment belongs to a person without a name, and each money was transferred from the plaintiff's account to the defendant's account without a legal ground, the defendant is obligated to return the amount transferred to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(2) The unjust enrichment scheme is an equitable principle in a case where the gain of the benefiting person’s property did not have a legal cause.