1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant operates an online virtual currency trading brokerage site C (hereinafter “instant site”), and operates a virtual currency settlement method by giving virtual account numbers to its members.

B. On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff, who misrepresented an investigator of the financial investigation team of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, transferred 4.8 million won per page to the D Bank E virtual account (hereinafter “the instant virtual account”) of the names infinites who misrepresented the investigator of the financial investigation team of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, “whether the current account was used for the instant case.” In addition, it is necessary to investigate that the head of the Tong may have sold the passbook for KRW 500,000 per opening. If so, the Plaintiff may sell the passbook for KRW 50,000 per page.”

Meanwhile, the instant virtual account was a virtual account created by being admitted to membership in the instant website in the Plaintiff’s name. The instant virtual account was a transaction of KRW 4.8 million, which was transferred to the said account, on seven occasions from the date of transfer to the following day.

C. On July 22, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for withdrawal with the above Bitco, 1.59514BTC, the above Bitco, 1.595.14BTC, but it was impossible to withdraw due to the Defendant’s withdrawal suspension. As the Plaintiff was affiliated with the Defendant’s customer center, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant’s customer center a photograph from which his face and identification card was generated, and then released all of the above Bitco, the above Bitco, 1.59514BTC, the Plaintiff’s withdrawal suspension, and then released all of the above Bitco, the above external electronic wall

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is irrelevant to the Plaintiff. The e-mail used by the Defendant as a member of the instant website is irrelevant to the Plaintiff. However, without verifying whether the Defendant’s personal information and the name of the member seeking to subscribe to the said e-mail coincide, the Plaintiff’s membership without verifying the identity theft.