The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff deceivings that he/she should deposit money in the form of money in the form of an insurance money for loss of loan, even though he/she can loan up to 48 million won from his/her poor name, around July 4, 2019, into an account designating money in the form of money for loss of insurance proceeds for the loan. On July 9, 2019, the plaintiff remitted 37,300,000 won to the account in the name of the defendant designated by the above false name recipient, and 6,000,000 won to the account in the name of C designated by the above false name recipient on July 10, 2019.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant received a proposal that he increased the transaction performance in order to lend money from the person under whose name the account was named and the account number was notified to the person under whose name the account was deposited in the above account and the money deposited in the above account was returned to the person under whose name the account was not opened. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant sent the account number to the person under whose name the account was not opened and delivered the money deposited in the above account with the above circumstance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was liable for the damages of the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor due to negligence because the Defendant could have known the entire crime of Bosing. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant committed an act that facilitates the commission of the so-called crime of Bosing, even though it could have predicted that the Defendant was used for the so-called Bosing crime, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da2836, Jan. 29, 2015; 2013Da210732, Feb. 12, 2015). The Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to the Plaintiff’s tort is groundless

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was obligated to return money from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant without any legal ground. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is only the said 37.3 million won deposited in the Defendant’s account under its name.