1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of Seongdong-gu Seoul E building around March 2004.

B. The Defendant’s put up B, prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the ownership of the E building, was in office as the manager of the E building, and retired from office on May 31, 2017.

C. B, as a part of the E building management business, received and managed the difference from the lessees of stores in the building in the name of the Plaintiff in the account of the National Bank (Account Number:F). Without the Plaintiff’s permission, B withdrawn KRW 500,000,000 from the said account from January 5, 2016, and KRW 10,000,000 from February 21, 2017, and transferred KRW 200,000 to the account in the name of C, his/her child, on November 21, 2016, and on March 2, 2017, to the account in the name of the Defendant, his/her child.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, and 8 (including branch numbers, if any);

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B, on March 2, 2017, transferred KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant, and embezzled it. Accordingly, the Defendant gains a profit equivalent to KRW 2 million without any legal ground and incurred a loss equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant, as unjust enrichment, is obligated to refund the said KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff and its delay damages.

B. Determination 1) The unjust enrichment system imposes an obligation of return on an benefiting person based on the principle of fairness and justice in a case where the benefiting person’s property gains lack legal cause. It is reasonable to view that the obligee’s acquisition of money is a legal cause in relation to the victim, unless there is any bad faith or gross negligence as to the fact that the money embezzled by the obligor in repayment to his/her creditor was embezzled when the obligee received repayment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da74246, Jan. 12, 2012).