1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 5,950,00 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 10, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Claim against Defendant B and Defendant E

(a) Description of the claim;

A. On January 29, 2015, the person whose name was omitted had the Plaintiff input information, such as the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, account number, account number, password, contact number, and OTP code, after installing a malicious program on the Plaintiff’s computer used by the Plaintiff.

B. On January 29, 2015, the name-freeist transferred a total of KRW 5,950,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to Defendant B’s account in total and KRW 5,950,000 from Defendant E’s account, respectively.

C. Since there is no legal relationship that causes account transfer between the Plaintiff, the remitter, Defendant B, and Defendant E, the remitter, and thus, the Plaintiff has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the said Defendants.

(b) Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment based on constructive confession (However, since the provision on statutory interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition etc. of Legal Proceedings was amended by 15% per annum from October 1, 2015, this provision shall apply).

2. Claim against Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant F, and Defendant G

A. On January 29, 2015, the name omittedist (1) installed a malicious program on the Plaintiff’s computer used by the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff enter information, such as the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, account number, account number, contact number, and OTP code. 2) On January 29, 2015, the name omittedist transferred the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 5,940,00 in the Plaintiff’s account under the Defendant C’s name from the Plaintiff’s account, total amount of KRW 5,730,00 in total, KRW 5,950,00 in the Defendant F’s account, and total amount of KRW 5,000 in the Defendant G account, respectively.

3. Although Defendant C is recognized as violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act that transfers a physical card, the suspension of indictment is imposed in consideration of the fact that Defendant C was the first offender and did not actually obtain a loan, and the fact that Defendant D also violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act that assigned the physical card is recognized.