beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as to KRW 3,900,000, and each of the said money, from June 10, 2014 to December 12, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff misrepresented the employees of the Hyundai Card Company to create a head of the Happiness Fund Maspbook by raising credit rating from the telephoneer (hereinafter “instant remittance”). On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 28 million to the account of Defendant B’s community credit cooperatives on June 5, 2014, and on June 9, 2014, KRW 13 million to the Defendant Samsung Securities Account (hereinafter “each of the instant remittance”).
(hereinafter referred to as the “phishing of this case”). (b)
Each of the above money remitted to each account of the Defendants was immediately withdrawn from each of the instant money via a name-free box.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, fact-finding result of this court's fact-finding, the whole purport of pleading
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant transfers was made without any legal cause and constitutes unjust enrichment, and sought the return of each of the instant transfers to the Defendants, as the primary cause of the instant claim.
B. However, in cases where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between a remitter and the addressee, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007; 2007Da66088, May 27, 2010). However, in cases where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party based on the ideology of fairness and justice, and it is difficult to impose the duty of return unless the benefiting party has a substantial interest.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201, etc.). C.
The transfer of this case is made to return to this case, and each transfer of this case.