1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person working as a branch office C branch office of the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd.”) and the Defendant is a person commissioned as an insurance designer belonging to the Korea Life Insurance Association on October 28, 2013 after he/she received a proposal from the Plaintiff to work as an insurance solicitor around October 2013 while working as an insurance solicitor and filed an application for registration of an insurance solicitor with the Korea Life Insurance Association around October 28, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,700,000 on November 4, 2013, and KRW 5,000,000 on November 26, 2013 to the Defendant’s account via the Plaintiff’s or Plaintiff’s wife D’s account.

C. Around February 2014, the Defendant withdrawn from the Korean Commercial Bio-resources.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff transferred KRW 9,700,000 to the defendant's account (the plaintiff was returned from KRW 5,000,000,000, which was remitted to the defendant on November 26, 2013) from the defendant who left the Republic of Korea on or around November 201, 203, and the defendant received the statement that he had a full payment from the defendant, and then transferred KRW 9,70,000 to the defendant's account through the plaintiff's account or D's account (the plaintiff was returned from KRW 5,00,000,000 which was remitted to the defendant on November 26, 2013). The defendant borrowed KRW 9,700,000 from the plaintiff or obtained unjust enrichment without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan or unjust enrichment with KRW 9,700

B. Where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on a variety of legal causes. Thus, the fact that the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a loan under a monetary loan contract must be proved by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In addition, a certain amount of benefit, such as the instant case, has been paid, and the said benefit may be paid.