1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the only heir of D, who died on July 8, 2016.

B. On July 12, 2016, the Busan Bank account (E; hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the network D was deposited with KRW 17,628,502 as of July 12, 2016, but KRW 5,000,000 on July 12, 2016, and KRW 12,628,502 on July 13, 2016 was transferred from the instant account to the Busan Bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s assertion account is owned by the heir, the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s delegation or consent, transferred the money deposited in the said account to C’s account without permission, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money equivalent to the above amount of damages caused by tort.

(b) The judgment financial company, etc. shall conduct financial transactions in the trader’s real name, and any financial assets held in an account the real name of which is verified or in an account the real name of which is verified by any similar means under the laws and regulations of a

(Article 3(1) and (5) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality. Therefore, in order to reverse such presumption, the Defendant’s assertion that the deposit held in an account with which the real name was verified is owned by a person other than the nominal owner ought to prove it.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the defendant was in possession of the right to deposit internally between the bank account of this case and the network D, based on the evidence mentioned above, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 3 (including the serial number).

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.