1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and ancillary claim against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 2013, the Defendant, on November 22, 2013, opened a copy of each passbook, physical card, and password of the Defendant Agricultural Cooperative Account (V) and the post office account (W) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant account”).

(A) No. 5-3. No. 11,940,00 won in the 2 post office (W) November 27, 2013, 2011. 5,970,000 won in the remittance of the account number transfer date.

B. On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff heard the phrase “the Plaintiff’s office’s employee is the Plaintiff’s employee, and the Plaintiff’s agricultural bank account was used in money laundering, and thus, changed to the Plaintiff’s other accounts and security card numbers.” The Plaintiff issued the Plaintiff’s post office account (O; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s account”) and security card numbers to the Nonparty in the name of the infant.

In the same day, the person who was unaware of name wired the sum of 11,940,000 won from the Plaintiff’s above post office account to the Defendant’s above NAC account through Internet banking on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant fraud”) (Evidence A No. 1, 2, and 3) (C).

On September 17, 2014, the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office that investigated the instant fraud crime case, issued a disposition to the defendant that he/she was suspected of having been convicted (Evidence of Evidence).

(No. 5-3 of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, 2014, 32093 (No. 5-3 of the A), 5-3 of the evidence No. 1, 2, 3, and 5-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the primary claim

A. The Plaintiff’s money transferred from the Plaintiff’s above post office account to the Defendant’s above NA account constitutes a profit earned by the Defendant without any legal ground, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above 11,940,000 won and damages for delay with respect to the return of unjust enrichment.

B. In a case where, even if there is no legal relationship causing account transfer between a remitter of the relevant legal doctrine and an addressee, an addressee of a account transfer acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount, the remitter shall be the addressee.