1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was a person who operated the gas station D (hereinafter “the gas station of this case”) located in Yangyang-si, and the Defendant was an employee who worked for the gas station of this case from September 1, 2004 to September 30, 2014, as the customer of the gas station of this case.

on June 7, 2010 10,000 USCFF on July 5, 2010 10, 201, the title date of the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “each of the accounts of this case”) (hereinafter “each of the accounts of this case”) total of 40,000,000,000 USCF on August 5, 2010 3, 3201, Dong 40,000 on October 10, 201, Dong 40,000 on October 6, 2010

B. E, an employee of the instant gas station, remitted each of the following money from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s account.

C. From August 6, 2010 to December 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with E for occupational embezzlement of KRW 266,381,00,00 in total, including the gas supply price, etc. at D gas stations (E had concealed the closing of the family register without attending the D gas station from December 14, 2010). On February 7, 2011, the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office was handed down a non-prosecution disposition of prosecution on the crime, such as occupational embezzlement, etc., of E, at the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office.

[Ground] In the absence of dispute, the following facts are examined: Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, Eul's evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 3; Eul's evidence Nos. 8-2, and each fact-finding with respect to the Southern Petroleum Selling Co., Ltd. (O. 30, 2015) and subordinate No. 1160; the court of first instance issued an order to submit each financial transaction information with respect to the No. 1614, Aug. 3, 2016, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above KRW 40,00,000 to the plaintiff due to the return of unjust enrichment since he was not aware of the fact that the defendant conspiredd in the above embezzlement, or obtained at least the above KRW 40,000,00 with the awareness that he embezzled money, and even though he was unaware of it, he was not aware of it. 2) Upon the request of E, the defendant is liable to pay the above KRW 40,000 with the return of unjust enrichment.