1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 21, 2015 to July 15, 2016, and the following.

On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff received a telephone from a person whose identity is unknown at around 13:42.

Upon entering the account number, password, etc. from the Jeju bank account in the name of the plaintiff to the one bank account in the name of the defendant, the plaintiff transferred KRW 60,000,000 from the Jeju bank account in the name of the plaintiff to the one bank account in the name of the defendant.

According to the details of the deposit account in the Defendant’s name, it is confirmed that KRW 40,00,000 has been deposited from 12:29 C on August 21, 2015, and the full amount of KRW 13:12 on the same day has been withdrawn from 13:42 on the same day. It is confirmed that KRW 60,00,000 has been deposited from 13:42 Plaintiff and that a total of KRW 35,00,000 has been withdrawn from 15:24 to 16:23 on the same day.

Meanwhile, on August 21, 2015, the above account under the name of the Defendant was suspended from being deposited and paid as a telecommunications-based financial fraud at around 16:37, and thereafter, it is confirmed that the account was reported as an account used for crime on September 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, and 2-2, and the result of fact-finding on Han Bank, the plaintiff's judgment as to the ground of claim as to the ground of claim as a whole as to the plaintiff's main claim was deposited 60,000,000 won in the relevant defendant's account from a person whose identity cannot be known.

60,000,000 won deposited in the account in the name of the defendant constitutes unjust enrichment and thus, the defendant is obligated to return the above money to the plaintiff.

The defendant is a person who lends the name of the passbook in the case of Bosing fraud, for which the plaintiff was determined as to the preliminary claim.

However, the defendant could have sufficiently predicted that the so-called Bosing crime would be used at the time of transferring the passbook to a person whose identity is not known, which is the means of access to electronic financing prohibited from transfer under the Electronic Finance Act.

Nevertheless, the defendant has a passbook.