1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,80,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 13, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she received a telephone from a person who was unaware of his/her name who misrepresented the circumstances of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency D and notified him/her of the password, etc., and the person in poor name transferred KRW 5,500,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant C’s account. Defendant C is obligated to return the said KRW 5,500,000,000 to the Plaintiff as he/she has been unjustly gained profits. In addition, Defendant C is obligated to first transfer his/her passbook to a person in poor name and assist in committing a criminal act.

B. Although there is no legal relationship between a remitter and an addressee as the cause of the account transfer, where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee, the remitter would be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). The unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting person on the basis of the principle of fair justice in cases where the benefiting person’s property gains do not have a legal cause. Therefore, if the benefiting person is not actually accrued, the benefiting person cannot be held liable for return. Accordingly, the Plaintiff remitted each money as stated in the claim for return

In order for the Defendants to gain profits equivalent to each of the above amounts, circumstances should be recognized to deem that the Defendants were practically able to control them, and that the Defendants were practically able to have gained substantial benefits.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201). In light of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the instant court’s order to submit financial transaction information to a corporate bank, the Plaintiff’s account constituted Defendant C’s corporate bank account on June 1, 2015.