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

A. On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) called the investigator of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office high-tech criminal investigation team; (b) obtained a telephone from a person whose passbook was used as a large passbook; and (c) entered one bank account number (D), password, and an OTP security card number in the name of the Plaintiff at the request of the person who was known to him/her at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Internet site (C).

B. However, in fact, it was not an investigator, and the passbook in the name of the plaintiff was not used as a passbook. The Internet site of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office known to him was also the one that the plaintiff committed fraud in the name of the plaintiff, such as a fake.

C. As a result, from the first bank account in the name of the Plaintiff’s name to the bank account in the name of the Defendant, KRW 32 million was transferred to the bank account in the name of the Defendant.

To obtain a loan, the Defendant notified the account number and password of the head of the Tong in order to secure the performance of the loan, and delivered the money transferred as above to the person who was not the identity of the recipient of the personal information, who requested the withdrawal and delivery of the deposited money.

E. The Plaintiff is only entitled to the refund of KRW 916 out of the said transfer amount pursuant to the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss and Refund of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud, and the remainder of KRW 31,99,084 has not been refunded.

In addition, there is no money transferred by the plaintiff remaining in the account in the name of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion without any legal ground that the Defendant inflicted damages on the Plaintiff in excess of KRW 31,99,084, excluding KRW 916,000,000,000, which was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to its own account, and the Plaintiff gains profit equivalent to the same amount. Accordingly, the Defendant returned unjust enrichment or withdrawn the deposit by providing information from the head of the Tong to the person who was not aware of his/her identity.