1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D, upon C’s request, lent KRW 60 million to the bank account under the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant jointly accepted the said money in the course of operating an illegal private horse (Fraud) office with C to receive money and jointly use it with C and to use it as a deposit account under the name of the Defendant in the management of the illegal private horse (Fraud) office.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above money to D on the ground of unjust enrichment or tort, and the plaintiff acquired the above claim for return of unjust enrichment or damages from D, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff KRW 30 million and the delay damages.

B. The above money transferred to the account under the name of the defendant's assertion was partially repaid by the defendant's husband to C, and there was no fact that the defendant borrowed money from D or operated the office of illegal private entertainment with C.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that D remitted KRW 60 million to the defendant's bank account on April 5, 2010 can be acknowledged, but the above fact of recognition and the response of each order to submit financial transaction information to J Co., Ltd. by this court alone, the defendant used the above money jointly with Eul for the operation of an illegal private horse (Fraud) office.

It is insufficient to recognize that C consented to the use of a deposit account in the name of the defendant for the operation of an illegal private horse (Fraud) office, with the knowledge of the fact that C used a deposit account in the name of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the existence of unjust enrichment return claim or damage claim against the defendant, is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.