beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this Court to indicate this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the additional arguments in the trial as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(A) The Defendant’s act does not appear to have led to aiding and abetting the crime of Bophishing by intention or negligence. 2. The Defendant did not add the conjunctive claim through the amendment of the purport of the claim as to the additional assertion. Thus, the Defendant’s act is determined as an additional assertion.
The plaintiff, regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, which is the cause of the above account transfer, once deposited in the account under the name of the defendant, the defendant acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the same amount against the bank. Thus, the defendant is liable to return the above unjust enrichment amount to the plaintiff.
However, even if the money remitted by the Plaintiff was deposited into the Defendant’s account, the circumstance should be acknowledged to deem that the Defendant had realized benefits to the extent that the Defendant could actually control the above money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Sept. 8, 201). In the instant case, the Defendant immediately withdrawn the money deposited into the Defendant’s account at the end of the under-paid person, where it is necessary to keep the transaction results in order to obtain a loan from the Defendant, and immediately delivers it to the non-indicted 1, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant has actually gained substantial benefits to the extent that the Defendant could actually control the above money, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is this.