The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 2019, the victim B (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) transferred KRW 124 million to the Plaintiff’s bank account in the name of C (hereinafter referred to as “damage remittance account”). On the same day, the amount of KRW 50 million was transferred from the said damage remittance account to the Plaintiff’s E bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 6 million was transferred from the said E bank account to the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant account”).

B. On April 12, 2019, the aggrieved party filed an application for remedy for damage with a bank pursuant to Article 3 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage Caused by Telecommunications Finance and the Refund of Victims (hereinafter “Act”). A corporate bank, around April 15, 2019, requested D and E banks to suspend payment in succession with a bank, pursuant to Article 4 of the Act (hereinafter “instant suspension of payment”), and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

(c)

On April 19, 2019, the Defendant publicly announced the commencement of the procedure for extinguishment of claims under Article 5 of the Act on the balance of deposit claims in the instant account (hereinafter “instant extinguished claim”) at the request of a corporate bank, and on June 20, 2019, on June 20, 2019, the Defendant publicly announced the extinguishment of the instant extinguished claim.

On July 4, 2019, the Corporate Bank paid the amount equivalent to the extinguished claim of this case to the victim as the refund money.

(d)

On August 16, 2019, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to refund the extinguished claim of this case pursuant to Article 13 of the Act. However, the Defendant on December 19, 2019, it is difficult to deem that the extinguished claim of this case constitutes funds acquired by a legitimate title, and there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the suspension of payment of this case and the procedure for extinguishment of the claim of this case.

The Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be seen as having failed to meet the requirements for the claim for refund of extinguished claims (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Ground for recognition] without dispute, and Party A.