1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, KRW 1,800,000, and each of them, from June 20, 2013 to November 18, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for diversing to the Nonghyup Bank and the New Bank, as the Plaintiff received a telephone from a person who misrepresented him/her as a police officer, to the effect that “the Plaintiff has leaked the Plaintiff’s personal information, so that he/she has to do so,” and notified him/her of the account number, serial number, code list, etc.

B. As above, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,920,000 from the Nong Bank Account in the name of the Plaintiff to the Nong Bank Account in the name of the Defendant B, and KRW 3,380,000 from the Nong Bank Account in the name of the Defendant C to the Nong Bank Account in the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 2,620,000 from the Plaintiff’s New Bank Account in the name of the Plaintiff to the Nong Bank Account in the name of the

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the result of each order to submit financial information to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion was made by deceiving a police officer from a person who misrepresented him, and was transferred to KRW 5,920,000 from the passbook under the name of the plaintiff to the passbook under the name of the defendant B, and KRW 6,000,000 to the passbook under the name of the defendant C, and the above defendants obtained a considerable benefit from the above money, so the defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to each of the above money to the plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,920,000 from the account in the name of the Plaintiff to the passbook in the name of the Defendant B, and KRW 6,000,000 to the passbook in the name of the Defendant C was respectively transferred from the account in the name of the Defendant C. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants acquired the said money and gained a substantial profit, and thus,

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor, as the joint tortfeasor, because they participated in the singishing by transferring the passbook to the name defecter.

B. (1) Determinations is made. (A) Several persons jointly inflict damages on others.