beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. On August 23, 2004, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 16,00,000 to a new bank account (Account Number: C; hereinafter “instant account”) under the name of the Defendant on August 23, 200 is not disputed between the parties, or recognized by the evidence A Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. On August 23, 2004, the Plaintiff lent KRW 16,000,000 to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 16,000,000 and damages for delay. Thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 16,00,000 to the instant account under the name of the Defendant on August 23, 2004 is as seen earlier. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.
B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should return the above 16,00,000 won to the plaintiff, since he received the above 16,00,000 won from the plaintiff without any legal ground, and the defendant should return the above 16,00,000 won to the plaintiff.
In a case where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship that causes account transfer between the remitter and the addressee, the remitter may be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount to the addressee. However, the unjust enrichment system imposes a duty of return on the beneficiary based on the principle of equity in a case where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground. Thus, if the benefiting party does not actually belong to the benefiting party, the obligation of return cannot be imposed.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Sept. 8, 201). With respect to this case, health class 2, E evidence 3-1 through 5, and evidence 4-1.