1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) called from a person in bad name, “a national bank G, and if several companies repeated loans and reimbursement, a national bank may grant a loan of KRW 30 million from the national bank; (b) borrowed KRW 10 million from the new card as of the same day as he/she instructs; (c) borrowed KRW 10 million from the new bank account in the name of Defendant B; (d) borrowed KRW 8 million from the Samsung Card to the one bank account in the name of Defendant C; and (e) transferred KRW 4.5 million from one Capital on the 30th of the same month to the national bank account in the name of Defendant E; and (e) transferred KRW 4.5 million from the 30th of the same month to the national bank account in the name of Defendant C.

(hereinafter “this case’s Bosing crime”). (b)

In most cases, the Plaintiff’s money transferred as above was immediately withdrawn from the bank account under Defendant B’s name. Meanwhile, on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff received 22,526 won from the said bank account under Defendant C’s name, 3,564,155 won from the said bank account under Defendant C’s name, and 3,229,81 won from the said bank account under Defendant E’s name on November 6, 201.

C. The Defendants were investigated by the Busan District Prosecutors' Office with respect to the instant Bosing crime, but did not constitute fraud, violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, etc.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), and each order to submit financial transaction information to the new bank, Han Bank, and Korean National Bank, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of the order to submit them

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Even though the Plaintiff’s assertion was not committed in collusion with a person under whose name the Defendants committed the instant Bosing, the Defendants were at least negligent in having the person under whose name the Defendants committed the instant Bosing by exceeding the respective passbook, card, password, etc. under their own name, and thereby making the Defendants be used for the instant Bosing. Thus, the Defendants constitute joint tort.