1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant is from October 17, 2017 to KRW 2,103,00 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a passbook and check card to C in the name of the Plaintiff’s name so that C, a partner of the Plaintiff, can play play for the number of days to neighboring market merchants.

B. From the instant account to the Defendant’s deposit account, KRW 901,00 on February 26, 2017, KRW 901,000, KRW 301,000, and KRW 2,103,00 in total were transferred on three occasions in total.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to lend KRW 2,130,000 to the Defendant known through E.

Even if the fact of lending is not recognized, the Defendant received the above money from the Plaintiff and received benefits without any legal ground, and thus, sought the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the loan or unjust enrichment 2,130,000 won and damages for delay.

B. The defendant asserts that the transfer of this case is provided by the defendant's children E and is not borrowed from the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account in a judgment on a loan claim, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Therefore, even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the money was received, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the money was leased should bear the burden of proof against the Plaintiff who asserts the loan.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015). The Plaintiff may provide C with a e-mail card with the instant account and allow C to play play by using money in the instant account.