1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C shall pay KRW 1,980, and Defendant D shall pay KRW 1,600, respectively.

2. The plaintiff against the defendant B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff received a call from a financial institution or a person who assumes an employee of an investigative agency to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s account is connected to a case.” The Plaintiff was committed so-called “the Plaintiff’s account is to be protected by the deposit for additional damage,” and was charged with each so-called “the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (E) in the name of the Defendant B; KRW 3,800,000; KRW 13,00,000 with the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant C (F); and KRW 12,00,000 with the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant C (G).

B. 3,800,000 won remitted to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under Defendant B’s name was immediately withdrawn.

13,00,000 won transferred to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in Defendant C’s name is immediately withdrawn from 12,998,020 won, and 1,980 won remains in balance.

12,00,000 won, which was remitted to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in Defendant D’s name, was immediately withdrawn from 11,998,400 won, and 1,600 won currently remains in the said account.

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and each of the items of this court's Engpoa branch, NongHypo-si branch, NongHypo-si branch, and Taecheon Doksan's order to submit financial transaction information, the whole purport

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, Defendant C, without any legal ground, obtained each benefit of KRW 1,980 and KRW 1,600 from the Plaintiff’s transfer, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered the same amount of damage.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 1,980, and Defendant D is obligated to pay KRW 1,600, respectively.

3. Claim for damages

A. The Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted that they could use the act of fraud to be committed, but aiding and abetting the crime by providing their account and means of access in their names. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount transferred to the Defendants’ account in its name.

B. Article 760 of the Civil Act of the judgment.