1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The plaintiff's judgment on the claim for damages due to joint tort (main claim) is that the defendant conspireds with D while being well aware that the defendant's Dong-in D intended to acquire money and valuables by deceiving the plaintiff, and he received 50,66,000 won in total from the plaintiff's agricultural bank account in the name of the defendant (H; hereinafter "the account of this case") six times in six times. The defendant's mother-in as D and joint tortfeasor, who promised to return 43,60,000 won as the defendant's mother-in partner D and the defendant's mother-in partner, is liable for joint compensation.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant was involved in the act of acquiring money from the plaintiff in collusion with D, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to further examine.

2. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return the above money to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, since the defendant gains profit by receiving the above money from the plaintiff without any legal ground, and the damage equivalent to the above amount occurred to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In a case where the unjust enrichment of the benefiting party does not have any legal cause, the unjust enrichment system imposes an obligation to return it on the benefiting party on the basis of the principle of fairness and justice, and if the benefiting party does not have any substantial benefit, the obligation to return it cannot be imposed (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 201). Reference to the Plaintiff’s judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 201) is a case of de facto controlling the transferred money

2) According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 2 and 2, the Plaintiff’s account at least three times via the instant account.