1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,456,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 22, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Basic Facts

A. On May 8, 2006, the Plaintiff opened the Defendant’s regular deposit account (D; hereinafter “instant account”) through his agent C, deposited KRW 43,00,000 on the same day, and deposited KRW 6,450,000 on May 8, 2009.

B. On May 8, 2009, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff’s name and affixed a seal of the Plaintiff’s name on the second cover table (SP). Under the Intervenor’s signature and seal, the Intervenor’s Intervenor terminated the instant account by submitting it to the Defendant after signing and sealing the Intervenor’s signature and seal, and deposited KRW 48,456,70 from the instant account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), and a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the account of this case alleged by the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole pleadings was concluded, and the maturity has arrived, thus seeking the return of the above account.

An intervenor’s act of withdrawing the above deposits constitutes an unauthorized representation, and the defendant shall not be deemed the good faith and negligence to believe that the intervenor has the right to withdraw the above deposits in violation of the duty of care to be observed by the financial institution, and thus, the repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim shall not be established.

The plaintiff asserted by the defendant and the intervenor is merely a title trustee of the instant account, and the actual deposit holder is not a plaintiff, so it is not possible to seek the return of the instant account, and the deposit of the instant account should be attributed to the intervenor, who is the guardian of the deceased C and the heir. As such, the participant’s withdrawal of the deposit of the instant account does not cause any damage to the plaintiff, nor did the intervenor acquire unjust enrichment.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s payment of the deposit in the instant account to the Intervenor, who is the substantial deposit owner, the guardian and the inheritor, was exempted from liability with respect to the quasi-Possessor of the claim.

Judgment

In this case.