1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant D, KRW 17,501,500, and each of them from October 17, 2014.

1. Claim against Defendant B and D

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

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment on deemed as private capital);

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by phoneing the employee of the Nonghyup Bank from a person who assumes the position of the Nong Bank, and thereafter deposited KRW 40 million into the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name, and notified the Plaintiff of the financial transaction information and personal information related to the account. However, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,701,00 in total from the said account under the name of the Plaintiff to the Hansung Investment Securities account under the name of the Defendant C.

Therefore, the above defendant has a duty to return the above money as unjust enrichment because he obtained the above money without any legal ground. In addition, the above defendant provided the defendant with the means of access, such as passbook, cash card, and password under the name of the defendant in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, so that he could be used for the singinging crime. The above defendant could have sufficiently predicted such circumstances, and thus, aided and abetted the criminal act of the person who has failed to obtain the name. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

B. 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 and the addressee as to the primary claim, the remitter is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007; 2007Da66088, May 27, 2010). Meanwhile, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party based on the principle of fair justice in cases where the benefiting party’s property gains do not have a legal ground.