1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a telephone from a person under whose name the Plaintiff misrepresented the employee of the Korea Asset Management Corporation, stating that “A customer NF would borrow a loan through a lending company with a low credit rating, and pay the loan of KRW 50,000,00,000, which is a low interest rate, by raising the transaction performance by paying the loan; and (b) provided that he/she knew his/her account number, password, account transfer password, account transfer password, and an authorized certificate password, etc.; and (c) on May 29, 2014, a person under whose name the Plaintiff was named, transferred KRW 8,70,000 from a new bank under the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s Hyundai Securities Account (C) using the Plaintiff’s financial transaction information.

B. On May 29, 2014, the person in whose name the person in whose name the account was named was returned from the modern securities account in the name of the Defendant to the new bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, immediately sought KRW 8,700,000.

(hereinafter “this case’s crime”). 【Unsatisfy ground for recognition】 【Unsatisfy ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 3, and response according to the first instance court’s order to submit financial transaction information to the chief of the modern securities branch office, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant alleged that he acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the amount remitted to his own account, and thus is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the deposit claim to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and even if not, it does not so.

Even if the Defendant was able to have sufficiently predicted that his account would be used for the crime of fraud, such as the instant crime, the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor.

B. 1) Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment is as follows: (a) when the remitter has made a money transfer to the payee’s deposit account, the remitter is the recipient regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship between the remitter and the payee, which is the cause of the money transfer.