1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. Appeal;

1. The following facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole as to the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 2.

On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff consulted with a person in charge of loans under his name in order to obtain a loan from a person in charge of loans under his/her name, and he/she provided a loan to up to 31 million won when he/she repaid the existing loan from a person in charge of loans under his/her name.

B. On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 8.1 million to the Defendant’s account designated by a person in charge of loans in the name-free name.

C. On October 7, 2019, the Defendant remitted KRW 6030,000,000, out of KRW 8.1 million remitted from the Plaintiff, to the account in the name of C.

According to the application for the suspension of payment to the defendant's account, 2.7 million won out of 8.1 million won that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant's account (=8.1 million won - 6.3 million won) remains.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim 1) : The Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment transferred KRW 8.1 million to the Defendant’s account designated by the borrower on October 7, 2019, but did not recover KRW 8.1 million from the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 8.1 million for unjust enrichment and damages for delay. The Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 8.1 million without any legal cause. 2) Preliminary claim: The Defendant is a public-private partnership with the person who attempted to arrange for a tort, and the Defendant cooperates with the Plaintiff by remitting KRW 6.3 million out of KRW 8.1 million, which was remitted by the Defendant, to the account ordered by the person who was not aware of the name. As such, the Defendant, a joint tortfeasor, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages and damages for delay.

B. The determination system on the primary claim is to impose the duty of return on the benefiting party on the basis of the ideology of fairness and justice in a case where the benefiting party’s financial gain has no legal cause. Therefore, it is substantial to the benefiting party.