1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s action for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the review are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are recognized:

A. On September 19, 2014, by deceiving the Plaintiff, and obtaining from the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, account number, account number, cell phone number, mobile phone number, user ID, user identification number, transfer identification number, secret identification number, serial number of an authorized certificate, security card serial number, and secret number of a security card. After obtaining an authorized certificate issued under the Plaintiff’s name from the Defendant bank, withdrawing KRW 63,680,00 from the account in the name of the Plaintiff established in the Defendant bank over 32 occasions, and then withdrawing all of them from the account in the name of the third party.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Bank on the grounds of Article 9(1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, etc. by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da209508, and the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 15, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance court, and appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2015Na44983. On November 12, 2015, the appellate court rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “decision subject to a retrial”) and subsequently appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da252365 Decided March 11, 2016. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissing it.

On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in a judgment subject to retrial, and filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. In the case subject to reexamination, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not neglect the duty of due care of a good manager so that the Defendant can safely process electronic financial transactions pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.