The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an electronic bill with a face value of KRW 50,406,480 at the face value, and tried to transfer the electronic bill to the above company in order to approve the payment for the commercial branch office L&C expenses, which is the business partner. In error, the Plaintiff entered the commercial branch office L&C volume (hereinafter “non-party company”) as an endorsee.

B. On February 20, 2014, the amount of the foregoing electronic bill was deposited into the account held by the non-party company in the Defendant bank.

C. On May 25, 2014, the Defendant notified the non-party company of set-off to the effect that the deposit claim equivalent to the amount deposited in the said account and the Defendant’s loans against the non-party company would set-off (hereinafter “first set-off”) May 30, 2014, but the above notification was returned without arrival to the non-party company.

On March 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the non-party company of set-off on June 2, 2014 (hereinafter “the second set-off”) that deposit claims equivalent to the amount deposited in the said account and Defendant’s loan claims against the non-party company would be set-off against the non-party company. The above notification reached the non-party company on March 23, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that set-off of the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against Nonparty Company and the Plaintiff’s claim for deposit equivalent to the electronic bills against the Defendant is null and void because it is contrary to the good faith principle or abused the right to set-off. Accordingly, the Defendant makes unjust enrichment in relation to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the electronic bills to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is the non-party company as the endorsee.