The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2018, the Plaintiff received a telephone from a person who belongs to the organization of the phishing criminal act, that “if a loan is received from a second financial right, it is possible to borrow at a low interest rate from a D bank,” and transferred KRW 30,000,000, the money borrowed from E on December 11, 2018, to a bank account in the name of Defendant C.

B. Defendant C remitted the said day of money to the account of his own company bank connected to G virtual currency exchange operated by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), and then remitted the said money to the virtual currency bank account known to the non-member of the non-member of the family currency after purchasing the said money.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 5 (including all numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The plaintiff is subject to Bosing crimes and remitted 30 million won to the defendant C without any legal cause. The above money was eventually transferred to G's virtual currency A operated by the defendant company. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to return the above money to the plaintiff as illegal profit.

The argument is asserted.

2) In a case where the benefits of the benefiting party do not have any legal cause, the secondary benefit system imposes an obligation to return the benefits to the benefiting party on the basis of the ideology of fairness and justice, and if the benefiting party does not have any substantial benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da24273, Dec. 29, 2016). The Plaintiff wired the amount of KRW 30 million from Defendant C’s account to Defendant C’s account, and the said amount was used as the transaction price of virtual currency from Defendant Company G. As seen earlier.

However, examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient.