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. On March 7, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,00 to the head of the Tong in the corporate bank of Defendant B.

B. On March 8, 2006, KRW 30,000 was remitted from Defendant B’s above passbook to Defendant C’s passbook.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B guaranteed the Defendant B’s debt of KRW 40,000,000, and filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of deposit against the Defendant B at the Ulsan District Court (2008Gadan202555), but the said lawsuit became final and conclusive against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6, 7, 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On March 7, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,00 to D on March 7, 2006, and at the request of D, remitted to Defendant B’s passbook.

D is residing in the Philippines and did not pay the above money.

Since Defendant B permitted the use of the passbook to D, there is a liability similar to that of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, or the liability of the joint tortfeasor under Article 760 of the Civil Act, and as co-offender under Article 49 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

On March 8, 2006, Defendant B remitted KRW 30,000,000 to Defendant C out of the above KRW 40,000,000. Defendant C is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff by unjust enrichment.

2. The facts that the Plaintiff, recognized prior to the determination, remitted KRW 40,000,00 to the Defendant B’s account, and the entries in the evidence No. 3 alone, cannot be deemed that Defendant B permitted another person as prescribed in Article 24 of the Commercial Act to engage in the business by using his name or trade name. In collusion with D, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant B committed a joint tort by receiving the above borrowed amount. The fact that KRW 30,00,000 was remitted from the Defendant B’s account to the Defendant C’s account cannot be deemed to have acquired it without any cause.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed on the ground that all of the claims are without merit.