1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered an authorized certificate password, passbook number, password, and security card number in order to have an authorized certificate reissued by linking the Plaintiff’s Internet banking service with the Plaintiff’s Internet banking service without knowing that the Plaintiff was installed a one-time domain code which deducts the financial transaction information input in connection with the Plaintiff’s Internet banking service, and then transferred KRW 1,80,000 from the Plaintiff’s foreign exchange bank account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s community credit cooperatives (C) on the same day, using the Plaintiff’s financial transaction information that was deducted through the above domain code.

B. On September 1, 2013, the person whose name was omitted was immediately returned KRW 1,80,000,000, from the account of community credit cooperatives under the name of the Defendant to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “this case’s crime”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition】; 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition’s evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 1-2-2; and the result of reply following the order to submit financial transaction information to the director of the first instance court to the director of the small Saemaul Depository; the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant alleged that he acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the amount remitted to his own account, and thus is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the deposit claim to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and even if not, it does not so.

Even if the Defendant was able to have sufficiently predicted that his account would be used for the crime of fraud, such as the instant crime, the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor.

B. 1) Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment is as follows: (a) when the remitter has made a money transfer to the payee’s deposit account, the remitter is the recipient regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship between the remitter and the payee, which is the cause of the money transfer.