1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant D, Defendant D, KRW 7,000,000, and Defendant E, KRW 10,000,00; and

1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B, C, D, and E

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

(b) Grounds (1) Defendant B and D: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (2) by Defendant C and E: The judgment by deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant F

A. Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter of a claim for return of unjust enrichment and the addressee, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, in a case where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party on the basis of the principle of fair justice, and thus, if the benefiting party does not have a substantial benefit, the obligation of return cannot be imposed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201, etc.). The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant F unjust enrichment of the Plaintiff’s money remitted to his account under his name without any legal cause. As such, the Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the money of KRW 10 million to the bank account under his name, but in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 51, 2, and 3, the said remitted money may be acknowledged as having been transferred to the bank account of Bosphishing C, which controlled Defendant F immediately after the remittance. Thus, it is difficult to view that the said remitted money was practically reverted to Defendant F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant F obtained profit with respect to the said money, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part of this case is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s damages claim against Defendant F by deceiving the Plaintiff.