1. The Plaintiff; Defendant C is KRW 584,00; Defendant E is KRW 5,152,00; Defendant F is KRW 4,800,000; Defendant G is KRW 4,800,000; and Defendant G is KRW 4,80,000.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, andO

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment without pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B, D, I, K, and L

A. Basic facts (1) On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff received the call that “10 million won can be loaned, and 3,50,000 won may be loaned if a stamp and interest is remitted,” from the first police officer,” and on December 6, 2013, deposited KRW 3,50,000 into the post office account in the name of Defendant B, KRW 1,40,000,000 in the account in the name of Defendant D on December 10, 2013, KRW 2,50,000 in the post office account in the name of Defendant I on December 13, 2013, KRW 4.8 million in the account in the name of Defendant K community credit cooperatives on December 13, 2013, and KRW 6,00,000 in the account in the name of Defendant CF on December 27, 2013.

(2) In the above Defendants’ name account, each of the above deposits was immediately deposited on the date of such deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant I: A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and evidence 3-8; the purport of the whole pleadings; defendant B, D, K, and L: by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the above defendants have a duty to return each of the money stated in the claim as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, since the defendants obtained benefits equivalent to the amount that they received from the bank account in their name without any legal grounds.

(2) In light of the circumstances where most of the money was withdrawn from the account held in the name of the said Defendants immediately after the Plaintiff remitted money to the said Defendants’ account, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is difficult to deem that the said Defendants actually acquired the deposit claim equivalent to the aforementioned remittance amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim against the above defendants is without merit.

C. Judgment on the conjunctive claim (liability for damages arising from a tort) (1) The Plaintiff’s tort committed by the Defendants without their names.