1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is 5,306 won and won to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 34,944,854 to an account under the name of the Defendant, i.e., transfer of the Plaintiff’s personal information from a person under a false name who assumes a false name with an investigative agency to an account managed by the investigative agency because the Plaintiff’s personal information was leaked and is likely to be withdrawn

(hereinafter referred to as “phishing crime”). (b)

After that, on July 4, 2014, the person who was unable to use his name had withdrawn KRW 8,994,00 from the account under the name of the defendant, and the plaintiff reported to the police station and recovered KRW 25,950,854 from the account under the name of the defendant on September 30, 2014.

At present, the account in the name of the defendant remains 5,306 won.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, entry of Gap 1 and 2, response to financial transaction information to the Han field Saemaul Depository of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for return of unjust enrichment (principal claim)

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 34,944,854 to the account in the name of the Defendant due to the Defendant’s act of hosting the name in the name of the boxes; and (b) recovered KRW 25,950,894,00 without any legal cause (i.e., KRW 34,94,944,854 - KRW 25,950,894 - KRW 2594); and (b) thereby, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant is liable to return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,94,00 as unjust enrichment.

B. (1) Even though there is no legal relationship between a remitter and an addressee as the cause of the account transfer, in cases where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, 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 have no legal cause.