1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant D, KRW 2,000,00,000, Defendant H, Defendant H, KRW 4,500,00, and KRW 3,500,000, respectively.

1. On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff was urged to transfer KRW 30,000,000 from a person under a false name, who misrepresented the new savings bank, under the name, the deposit, commission, etc., of the lending line. From April 12, 2013 to June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff wired KRW 80,000 in total from the account in the name of the Plaintiff or from the account in the name of the Plaintiff’s child under the name of the Plaintiff or from the account in the name of the Plaintiff’s child under the name of the Plaintiff to the account in the name of each of the Defendants, to the account in the name of each of the Defendants, and from June 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants were obligated to return the money stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, since they received the money stated in the claim from the Plaintiff without any legal ground due to the deception of the bearers, and at the same time suffered loss to the Plaintiff.

B. Although the Defendants predicted that they may be used for the so-called "scaming" crime, they are liable for damages as joint tort liability under Article 760 of the Civil Act, since they could transfer their accounts under their name to the persons who have failed to obtain the name, or at least by negligence so that the persons who have failed to obtain the name may open a passbook under their name could easily commit the financial fraud of the persons who have failed to obtain the name.

3. Determination

(a) A claim against Defendant C, D, H, I, K, L, SbC, and U: A judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

B. Claim against Defendant M, N,O, Q, R, S, and W (X): Judgment by deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

C. Although there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as to the claim for the return of unjust enrichment against Defendant B, E, F, G, J, P, T (Y), and V, there is no cause of account transfer between the remitter and the addressee.