1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,021,426 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 27, 2014 to June 9, 2015.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff served from July 2012 to October 2012 as the head of the division in charge of the business of the Defendant Company’s B branch.

On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff requested C, an installment financing brokerage company, which was known to the other company at the time of working, to make a loan for the gold industry (hereinafter referred to as the “gold industry”), and conducted the loan with the Defendant’s approval on the loan.

On September 27, 2012, the Defendant remitted KRW 80,000 to D (representative E) a loan to the gold industry (on September 27, 2012, KRW 35,000,000, under the name of stamp and customer charges (on the transfer of KRW 79,965,00,00, under the name of stamp and customer charges), and D, around October 16, 2012, remitted KRW 79,965,000 to C.

C As representative, F embezzled the above loans.

(hereinafter “instant loan accident.” On October 26, 2012 after the instant loan accident occurred, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan amounting to KRW 81,021,426 in the name of D to the deposit-only account (Non-bank G) opened by the Defendant to implement the loan business (i.e., the loan amounting to KRW 80,000,000 from the enforcement date of the loan to the repayment date).

The defendant's loan contract for the gold industry was revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings by the parties concerned was conducted through C under the comprehensive approval of H by the head of the B branch, with the I director of the B branch and the I director of the B branch. Thus, the plaintiff performed his duty of care in performing his duties, and there is no responsibility for the loan accident of this case.

The Plaintiff did not have the obligation to compensate the Defendant for damages equivalent to the amount of the loan due to the instant loan accident, and the Defendant paid the loan due to coercion by H at the head of the B branch office, and without any legal ground, obtained a profit equivalent to the loan repaid by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff's assertion does not obtain the defendant's approval, but makes a loan through C, not the defendant's partnership.