1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 2013, at the time of the Plaintiff’s telephone on May 15, 15, 2013, the person whose name was omitted stated that “B is a criminal case of Intelligent Police Station in Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and a criminal case of Section 1: K, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu should immediately suspend his/her account after being used as a large passbook.” As such, the person whose name was omitted refers to the Plaintiff’s phone access to 126.19.8

However, the fact was that the passbook in the name of the plaintiff was not used as the passbook, and the address of the above AP had already been created with the intention of acquiring money by deceiving another person by deceiving another person.

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 6 million from the account of the Defendant’s name to the account of community credit cooperatives (U) in the name of the Defendant, by inputting the Plaintiff’s account number of one bank account under the Plaintiff’s husband’s name and the password of the OPT card at the end of the aforementioned false statement, and the said money was immediately withdrawn from the account of the above community credit cooperatives.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant fraud”). (C) The said criminal act by a person without name is deemed to have been committed.

On the other hand, the defendant opened and used the above account of community credit cooperatives on July 13, 2008, and the passbook was re-issued on May 14, 2013.

Around May 14, 2013, the Defendant stated to the effect that, for the purpose of getting a loan from the investigative agency, the cash card and password of the account of the above community credit cooperative was sent to the unskwikset service engineer. On August 20, 2013, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution of suspicion of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office (Evidence of Evidence).

(U) The facts that there is no dispute over the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office 2013No. 47954. [Grounds for Recognition], Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4-1 through 4, each financial transaction information inquiry results and the purport of the whole pleadings against the East and East Saemaeul Treasury of this Court.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion shall provide the defendant with the means of access to electronic financing.