1. The part of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant E in 12,000,000 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendant E.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a subsidiary company of H (hereinafter “H”) that operates a brokerage office that deals with encryption, concluded with H to have deposited money with the Plaintiff’s account, thereby allowing H to acquire the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account. However, in order to purchase the encryption in H, it is the structure that H first registers as a H and send the money to H or the Plaintiff’s account if H or the Plaintiff’s account requires H to purchase it.

B. H assigned a membership number to and managed the registered members under the name of H.

C. On November 19, 2018, the Plaintiff’s J bank account (K; hereinafter “instant account”) transferred total of KRW 5,100,000 in I’s name, including each remittance amount (However, the remittance amount stated in paragraph 4 of the attached Table is KRW 12 million) listed in the attached Table, on eight occasions, and H paid the above money to the members registered in the name of H. H.

Since then, the Defendants reported this case’s account to be used for phishing, and the J bank suspended the Plaintiff’s instant account pursuant to the “Special Act on Prevention of Damage Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion not only did the Defendants did not participate in the Bosing as claimed by the Defendants, but also did not know the fact that each amount listed in the separate sheet, which was transferred in I’s name, was remitted by the Defendants. Since the money transferred in I’s name was treated as the purchase price of encryption normally, each obligation listed in the Plaintiff’s separate sheet against the Defendants is nonexistent, and as above, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation is sought to cancel the suspension of payment of the instant account by the Defendants’ report.