1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendant C are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part relating to the Plaintiff’s appeal is the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "No evidence to acknowledge it exists" in Part 5, Part 16, of the judgment of the court of first instance. "No evidence to acknowledge it exists (if Defendant B and Defendant C are legally married or have de facto marital relations)," and "No evidence to acknowledge it" in the judgment of the court of first instance. The reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

C. 2 Judgment shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, in addition to the dismissal of the 2nd judgment.

2. The part used in the account transfer is established between the remitter and the receiving bank, regardless of whether there is a legal relation between the cause of account transfer between the remitter and the payee, and the receiving bank acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the above amount from the receiving bank.

In a case where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer due to account transfer, if the remitter has a right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee, there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as a cause of account transfer.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239 Decided November 29, 2007, etc. see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007. It is reasonable that Defendant B acquired deposit claims equivalent to the above remittance amount against the receiving bank by transferring it to the health room

However, for the acquisition of the above deposit claim to constitute unjust enrichment by Defendant B in relation to the Plaintiff, the remitter, the cause of the transfer of money to Defendant B’s account should not exist, such as the transfer by mistake or system error.

However, in this case, the plaintiff did not have any legal relation which caused the account under the name of the defendant B.