beta
Text
1. The Defendant paid KRW 32,868,506 to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 5% per annum from March 26, 2014 to December 23, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received compensation from C; and (b) opened the same securities account and delivered the password of the withdrawal of the said account, account cards, etc. to C.
B. On March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff received a false telephone from a person who was unaware of his/her name to sell KRW 20,500 g in the name of the E company located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City following North Korea, and then transferred KRW 47,368,860 to the Dongyang Securities Account (F) in the name of the Defendant on the same day.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to the same securities corporation
2. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that, as seen in the basic facts, the plaintiff transferred money to the same account in the name of the defendant without any legal ground, as seen in the basic facts. The defendant obtained a profit equivalent to the remitted amount, and as such, the defendant suffered a loss to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is obligated to return the money with unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.
Preliminaryly, the defendant could have sufficiently predicted that a person who committed a financial fraud can use his account card and password to commit the crime, and therefore aiding and abetting the crime by providing his account card and password, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the amount remitted as above with the damages.
3. Determination
A. Even if there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, in cases where the addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007; 2007Da66088, May 27, 2010). Meanwhile, the unjust enrichment system is the benefiter.