1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, and Defendant E, Defendant E, KRW 3,005,00,00 for each of the said money, and each of the said money from September 4, 2014 to September 2015.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Indication of Claim: Joint tort liability arising from the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 6,003,690 from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of Defendant C to the account in the name of Defendant C, in the case of Bophishing.

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

C. Limit of liability: Provided, however, the above defendant's liability is limited to 50%, taking into account all the circumstances, including the fact that the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, was negligent by notifying the information necessary for the crime of Bosing the instant case without undergoing any specific verification procedure.

A. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff listened to the false statement to the effect that “the deposit shall be transferred in order to solve this problem because it was connected to a crime related to the use of the name of the account” by a false statement from a person who misrepresented as a prosecutor’s public official, and accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the information necessary for the transfer of money from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the name of the Nonparty to each account in the name of the Defendant B, D, and E from the account in the name of the Plaintiff to the account in the name of

(hereinafter the crime of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "crime of Bosing). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant B, D, and E delivered the means of access to electronic financial transactions under the name of the above Defendants to the non-resident by negligence in the absence of any verification even though it could have anticipated that the plaintiff's account will be used for the above defendants' account, and thus, the non-resident could have caused property damage equivalent to the amount of each transfer by deceiving the plaintiff. Thus, the above defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of each transfer as compensation for tort and the compensation for delay from the date of remittance. 2) The defendant B, D, and E's assertion is the defendant B's proxy.