1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Attachment] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i1, 16, 3, 1, and 4 “H” is reversed as “M.”

In the first instance judgment, the part of the first instance judgment Nos. 11 and 12, stating that “the Plaintiff transferred all of the instant money from the instant account to the account of the seller of encryption.”

In the first instance judgment, the following items are met: “(1) whether the Plaintiff has a duty to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant” from 10th to 6th 17th am.

In a case where a remitter enters into a deposit account in accordance with the basic terms and conditions of deposit transaction, barring any special circumstance, a deposit contract equivalent to the above deposit amount shall be established between the remitter and the receiving bank, regardless of whether there is a legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, which is the cause of the transfer of funds, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, where the payee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer, the remitter shall have the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the payee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007; 2007Da66088, May 27, 2010). However, the system is not subject to the duty of fair return of unjust enrichment to the benefiting person and the receiving bank (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da120110, Jan. 2, 2010).