1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited the amount of KRW 9,873,600 (hereinafter “instant entry amount”) to the Defendant bank account (Account Number 223-03485-04-010, hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Grand Shelf Unemployment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Large Shelf Unemployment”).

B. On February 27, 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted a certificate of fact that “The Plaintiff deposited KRW 9,873,600, which was deposited in the instant account on December 31, 2013, is deposited by mistake in the absence of any transaction relationship with the large roof unemployment” (hereinafter “instant certificate of fact”).

C. On the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the instant entry money to the instant account by mistake, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against the Dae roof Unemployment with the Incheon District Court 2014Guj9378, seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the instant entry amount, and the said payment order was finalized on November 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the basic facts prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired deposit claims equivalent to KRW 9,873,600 from the instant account by mistake to the Defendant, and thus, the large roof unemployment is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. According to the purport of the evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, the large roof unemployment was in the state of losing the interest of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the loans to the Defendant at the time when the instant deposit amount was transferred, and it is recognized that it was closed on September 24, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff’s need to preserve it on behalf of the Plaintiff is recognized.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the confirmation document of this case against the defendant on February 27, 2014 constitutes a case where the debtor exercised his right, and thus, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff in subrogation of the large roof unemployment is unlawful.