1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant G: (a) KRW 1,789,267 as well as 5% per annum from April 1, 2014 to February 17, 2015; and (b)

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B, F, and G

(a) Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in the changed cause of claims; and

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. With respect to the primary claim (the claim for return of unjust enrichment), the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on the fact that the above Defendants acquired a substantial benefit is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit.

With respect to the preliminary claim (claim for Damages) by Defendant B and F, it is not sufficient to recognize the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, each of the Plaintiff’s arguments against Defendant B and F is without merit.

In light of the records in relation to Defendant G, it is reasonable to view that Defendant G was negligent by providing Defendant G with a nameless person with a nameless person, not taking necessary measures to prevent it, and by providing a nameless person with a nameless person with a nameless person, etc., even if Defendant G did not actively participate in the instant crime, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant G was negligent by providing the nameless person with a nameless person, etc., even though it was sufficiently foreseeable that his account can be used for committing the crime when providing a nameless person with a nameless person, a nameless person and a joint tortfeasor, etc., as a joint tortfeasor, even though Defendant G did not act in collusion with the nameless person or actively participate in the instant crime.