1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2014, the Plaintiff accessed the Internet by using the office computer on a 09:23rd day, and “security strengthening line” came to a pop-up shop, and entered personal gold information, such as resident registration numbers, account numbers, security card serial numbers, and code numbers, on the website connected thereto.

B. After the Plaintiff’s Nonghyup Bank account (F), the sum of KRW 5,930,00,000 in total to the account of one bank (G) in Defendant B, KRW 5,960,00 in total to the account of credit union (H) in Defendant C’s name, KRW 5,900,000 in total to the dynamic comprehensive financial account in Defendant D’s name, and KRW 3,240,000 in total to the account of credit union (J) in Defendant E’s name. On the same day, most of the funds transferred as above were withdrawn in cash by a person without a name, and some of the remaining funds were withdrawn as a refund of financial fraud damage.

C. Ultimately, the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s account as of the date of closing the argument in the instant case is entirely withdrawn and does not remain in the said account.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of branch offices), the heads of the Bank of this Court, the heads of the Bank of Korea, the President of the Bank, the President of the Bank, the President of the Bank, the president of the Credit Union, and the chief executive officer of the Bank of Korea, the purport of the whole arguments,

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted unjust enrichment that the Defendants acquired unjust enrichment as much as the amount remitted due to the illegal act of a person without a name, and thus return it to the Plaintiff respectively. However, in light of the above facts of recognition, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants obtained unjust enrichment without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(b).