beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant began to pay KRW 10 million from 2003 to 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant met to receive KRW 10,000,000 from 196 to 200,000,000 from 203 to 2013.
The Plaintiff has managed both the deposit and the deposit through the entry and exit of the passbook. As a result of settling accounts through the passbook after the completion of the fraternity, the difference between the deposit and the deposit paid from the Defendant for the period from 2003 to 2010 years from 2013 reaches 112,530,000 won.
Therefore, the Defendant sought the return of KRW 112,530,000 in difference between the deposit amount and the deposit amount.
2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap 3 and Eul 1 through 32, it is difficult to view that the defendant suffered unjust enrichment of KRW 112,530,000 from the plaintiff merely by the descriptions of Gap 1 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
According to the settlement of accounts asserted by the Plaintiff, from 2009 to 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,818,000,000,00 from the Defendant’s account to the account deposit amount of KRW 9.3 million (i.e., the Plaintiff’s account deposit amount, even if the Defendant normally paid the account deposit amount, may show that the transaction details of the Plaintiff’s account deposit amount and the account deposit amount between the Plaintiff and the Defendant have any other transaction, as well as the transaction details of the Plaintiff’s account deposit amount and the account deposit amount between the Plaintiff and the Defendant). However, even though the Defendant did not properly pay the account deposit amount for a long time, there is no particular circumstance to understand the fact that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s account holder, has been paying the entire account deposit amount.
As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the daily treatment was done by age as it was not the same as that of the defendant, and that it was remitted upon the defendant's good faith and the defendant's demand.