1. The Plaintiff’s obligation related to the remittance of KRW 32,00,000 to the Defendant does not exist.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2019, the Defendant may change the Defendant’s existing loan from a person who referred to as “D'do head office E” to a low interest rate loan product. For this purpose, the Defendant received an order to deposit F to a designated account with a loan of KRW 25 million and KRW 7 million from G, since it has to repay the existing loan and have a high interest new loan performance.

B. The Defendant received a total of KRW 32 million from F and G, and transferred the amount from the IBK Enterprise Bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant to the IBK account in the name of the Plaintiff (I; hereinafter “Defendant Account”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's 32 million won, which the plaintiff transferred, was transferred in collusion with the illegal acts of electronic financial fraud, and thus, the plaintiff is liable for damages arising from the tort or the unjust enrichment acquired without any legal ground, and thus, the defendant is obligated to return it to the defendant.

As to this, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband received Korean won equivalent to KRW 32 million in exchange for exchange of Korean currency equivalent to KRW 32 million from K in operating a money exchange center in the area of the Philippines, and thus, the Plaintiff’s husband received Korean currency equivalent to the Plaintiff’s account. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that there was no collusion or unjust enrichment with the illegal acts of electronic financial fraud, and sought confirmation of the existence of debt.

B. In a lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation, if the Plaintiff, who is the obligor, has asserted to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the burden of proving the fact that the obligation occurred.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). The fact that the Defendant remitted 32 million won to the Plaintiff’s account is as seen earlier, but as seen earlier, B was from 1 to 3.