2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

A. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received a call from a person who misrepresented an investigator of the public prosecutor’s office to “the Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine to the Doc

B. The Plaintiff was refunded KRW 3,023,298 out of the balance remaining in the account under the Defendant’s name in accordance with the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage Caused by Electronic Communications Financial Fraud and the Refund of Damage Amount, and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment were dismissed by the court of first instance, and only the defendant appealed in respect of the dismissal of the plaintiff's primary claim and the acceptance of part of the conjunctive claim, and the part of the primary claim is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

A. Although the plaintiff's assertion could have sufficiently predicted that the passbook and cash card in his own name can be used for the crime of fraud in this case, the defendant has a duty to pay compensation for damages resulting from the tort after deducting the amount equivalent to 50% of the plaintiff's negligence ratio from 14,976,702 (=18,000,000 - 3,023,298) and damages for delay.

B. In the event an electronic financial transaction was made through the means of access, the individual transaction that was made through such electronic financial transaction beyond imposing the legal effect on the holder of the means of access.