1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 42,867,210 to the deposit account (560-910-06-68904; hereinafter “instant account”) opened by a principal trading company (hereinafter “principal trading company”) with the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant deposit claim”). B.

On the other hand, on June 21, 201, the Defendant loaned KRW 5,000,000 to the primary trade, and had remaining KRW 2,818,277,333 as of June 19, 2014. However, around May 19, 2015, the instant deposit claim was set off against the claim for loans to the primary trade.

C. Meanwhile, Article 7(1)1 of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions of the Bank with respect to the above loans provides that when a notice of provisional seizure, seizure, or delinquent disposition is delivered to all kinds of deposits or other claims against a bank, or when compulsory execution or delinquent disposition is commenced by other means, the obligor shall naturally lose the benefit of all obligations against the bank without demanding and notifying the bank. Article 10(1) provides that where the due date for the obligations has arrived or the obligor shall pay back immediately pursuant to Article 7, the bank may set off the obligations against the obligor and the obligor's deposits or other claims against the bank by written notification, notwithstanding whether or not the due date for the obligations has expired.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant, even though he was aware of the plaintiff's remittance, has abused his right of set-off and obtained the satisfaction of the loan claim that had no possibility of recovery by offsetting the above remittance amount against the loan claim against the principal trade. This is a gain without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the above remittance amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The exercise of the right of set-off by the conjunctive defendant is against the Plaintiff’s head trade.