A. Defendant C’s KRW 14 and its related KRW 5% per annum from January 15, 2015 to October 16, 2015.

A. On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was bound to the instant case from a name-free person who misrepresented to the inspection, and the Plaintiff received a call from all the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendants’ account. On the same day, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 13 million to Defendant B’s account, KRW 20 million to Defendant C’s account, KRW 4.1 million to Defendant D’s account, and KRW 6 million to Defendant E’s account.

B. The money transferred to the Defendants is most withdrawn immediately after the transfer, and the balance of the Defendant B, D, and E’s deposit account transferred by the Plaintiff as of the date of closing the argument of this case is KRW 0, and the balance of the account evaluation of Defendant C is KRW 14.

[Reasons for Recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the community credit cooperatives federation of this Court, modern securities corporations, Korean investment securities corporations, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments against the Geumsan Saemaul Bank.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor, by aiding and abetting the false names of the victims by conspiracying with the false names or transferring the means of access, such as passbooks.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendants’ account without any legal cause, inasmuch as the Defendants obtained profit equivalent to the remittance amount and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff, the Defendants are obligated to return each remittance amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. Confession as to Defendant D or E (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. In the event an electronic financial transaction with Defendant B and C was conducted through the means of access based on one tort, the legal effect by such electronic financial transaction exceeds imposing on the nominal owner of the means of access.