1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2.(a)

Based on an application for the return of provisional payments,

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff received 4 million won from the co-defendant C of the first instance trial to the Defendant’s bank account as the Defendant was in need of money, and transferred this to the Defendant’s bank account. The Defendant, as the borrower, has a duty to pay the above 4 million won jointly with C.

B. Even if the defendant cannot be seen as a borrower, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the above four million won as joint tortfeasor, in collusion with C, such as lending his bank account to C, etc.

C. Even if the defendant cannot be viewed as a joint tortfeasor, the defendant, at least 4 million won remitted, obtained unjust enrichment without any legal cause, and thus, is obligated to return it.

2. Determination

A. First, according to the evidence No. 1, as to the argument that the Defendant borrowed KRW 4 million from the Plaintiff, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 4 million to the Defendant’s bank account on July 31, 2009, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above fact of recognition alone was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 4 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[M] According to the content certificate (Evidence A No. 2) sent by the Plaintiff to Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff: (a) stated that C would immediately refund KRW 4 million to the Defendant’s bank account, and (b) that C would transfer the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s bank account. Accordingly, C would have lent money to the Defendant’s bank account; (c) according to this, the Plaintiff would have lent KRW 4 million to C that is not the Defendant; (d) even if the Plaintiff lent KRW 4 million to the Defendant, according to the Plaintiff’s statement of evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant was a merchant operating the “EM” in Hongsung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and according to Articles 47 and 64 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant’s act is performed by the merchant pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act.