1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit after the appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “On January 18, 2015,” “On January 18, 2005,” “On March 11, 2015,” “On March 11, 2005,” “Defendant 20,” “Defendant 20,” “Defendant 1,” respectively, and “Defendant 1,” “as to the Plaintiff’s argument in the trial of the first instance, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s argument in the trial of the first instance. As such, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff only drafted an application for the termination of the account with the intent to terminate the KRW 40 million without the Plaintiff’s filing an application for early termination of the KRW 30 million and the KRW 10 million account. As such, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the said declaration of intention to terminate the account constitutes an unrest intent and becomes null and void, and that the Defendant should return the deposit amount equivalent to KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

In this regard, there is no evidence to prove the plaintiff's above assertion.

This is also the same in light of the fact that the KRW 30 million account and the KRW 10 million account have been opened as the money that terminated the KRW 40 million account.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. In the trial, the Plaintiff added the following claims:

1) The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant withheld at source the Plaintiff’s interest income and did not pay it to the National Tax Service, the Defendant should return the amount equivalent to KRW 3 million of income tax to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for consolation money of KRW 2 million (in excess of KRW 1 million claimed by the Defendant in the first instance trial) as compensation, since the Defendant unlawfully reversed financial data on the Plaintiff and arbitrarily discarded the remittance data on the Plaintiff’s account, and thereby committed a tort against the Plaintiff.