1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff’s financial statements were sent from the Plaintiff’s bank account to the Defendant’s bank account at around 18:19:33 on July 5, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the plaintiff's employee erroneously entered the account of the payee and remitted the above KRW 70 million to the defendant by mistake, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 70 million received without any legal ground to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination 1) Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who obtains a benefit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes damage to another person shall return such benefit.” In the case of so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties claims the return of the benefit on the ground that the benefit was not legally attributable, the burden of proving that there was no legal ground exists in the case of unjust enrichment for the benefit. In this case, the person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause was extinguished due to the invalidation, revocation, cancellation, etc., and that there was no legal ground in the case of the so-called wrongful remittance made on the ground that there was no such a cause as to the act of payment, the person who has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove the fact that the money was remitted to the Defendant by mistake (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018).

Rather, Eul Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 through 12, and Gap Nos. 1 and 1.