1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 31, 2015 to September 6, 2016.

1. In fact, the Plaintiff received a call from an unsatisfying person who misrepresented the inspection at around 11:52 on July 31, 2015, that “the Plaintiff was arrested an offender who stolen the Plaintiff’s name, and received all money in the Plaintiff’s bank account to arrest the upper line.” The Plaintiff transferred the money in his/her account at the end to the corporate bank account, thereby gathering the money in his/her account, and informed the thyp number as requested by the unsatfy person.

At around 14:08 on the same day, the person who was unaware of name transferred total of KRW 33,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s above corporate bank account to the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant.

At around 14:50 on the same day, the defendant withdrawn the above 33,000,000 won from his own account and delivered it to the person who is an employee of the deceased person.

It is the fact that the defendant has harmed the loan and provided it to the person who has not made a statement so that he can use his own bank account as the deposit and withdrawal account in the end of the person who has not received the name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1-2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 33 million due to the deception of the person who received the unjust enrichment, the plaintiff shall return the unjust enrichment.

However, the defendant withdrawn the money deposited into his account at the end of the person who was not the victim of his name and delivered the money to the person who was the employee of the person who was not the victim of his name.

It is difficult to deem that the Defendant has become a person with substantial benefits when it is able to actually control the said money.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. An aided and abetting a tort claim based on a tort should be held liable as a joint tortfeasor (Article 760(3) of the Civil Act), and aid and abetting by negligence is also possible.

The defendant provided a bank account, etc., the means of access the transfer of which is prohibited, to a person with no name and withdraws the deposited money.