1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant D, KRW 3,342,00,00, and Defendant E, KRW 1,032,00,00.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2,700,000 to the Defendant AC’s Agricultural Bank account, KRW 2,70,000 to Defendant C’s Agricultural Bank account, KRW 11,140,00 with Defendant C’s Korean investment securities and future deposits, KRW 3440,000 with Defendant C’s Samsung Securities account, KRW 34440,000 with Defendant E’s Samsung Securities account, and KRW 32,200,000 with Defendant FF’s account (hereinafter “each of the instant case”).

hereinafter referred to as the "phishing of this case"

B. B. Each of the above money remitted to the Defendants’ respective accounts was immediately withdrawn from each of the instant money via a nameless box. However, Defendant C’s agricultural bank account was suspended after only one million won was withdrawn from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, and the payment was suspended. 【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2, and 3, and the result of the fact inquiry by each of the instant courts, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant transfers was made without any legal cause and constitutes unjust enrichment, and sought the return of each of the instant transfers to the Defendants, as the primary cause of the instant claim.

B. However, in cases 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 a remitter and the addressee, 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). However, the unjust enrichment system is the benefiter.