1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff informed her verbally, that “the security system must be operated to ensure the safety of customers” from a person who misrepresented to the staff of the new bank system security team.

Around 18:48 of the same day, the above person under whose name the Plaintiff used the above financial information, transferred KRW 24 million from the Plaintiff’s new bank account to the Defendant’s corporate bank account (hereinafter “instant account”).

(hereinafter “instant fraud”). B.

The Plaintiff received KRW 9,002,396, which is an amount remaining after withdrawal from the instant account, as a refund for loss.

C. On the other hand, on November 19, 2014, the Defendant was investigated into the fact that “one cash card, etc. connected to the Defendant’s account in this case was transferred through Kwikset Service,” and was subject to a disposition of suspicion by a prosecutor from a prosecutor from the inside of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office on April 23, 2015 (Evidence of Evidence).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant received KRW 24 million from the Plaintiff without any legal cause in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thereby caused damage equivalent to KRW 14,97,604, which is the difference between the amount paid to the Plaintiff as a refund for damage, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff would have caused damage to the Plaintiff, which is the difference between the amount paid to the Plaintiff as a refund for damage. Accordingly

B. Although there is no legal relationship between the remitter of the relevant legal principle and the addressee as to the determination of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, in cases where the addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter of the relevant legal principle and the addressee, the remitter is equivalent to the above amount.