1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 29,000,00 to the Nonghyup Bank Account in Defendant B’s name.

B. On August 17, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 6,000,00 to the account of community credit cooperatives under Defendant C’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B is a person who leased and operated an AD vehicle, and Defendant C is a person who arranged the lease of a leased vehicle, and the Plaintiff was a driver who was permitted to temporarily use an AD vehicle for the purpose of purchase through Defendant C on July 23, 2016 while the Plaintiff was driving the AD vehicle for the purpose of purchase, which caused a traffic accident due to the failure to drive the vehicle, and was treated as a full-time loss.

B. Although the above traffic accident did not cause damage to the vehicle lessee because the insurer could receive insurance proceeds from the transfer from the insurer, the Defendants deceptioned that the Plaintiff is not liable for the part of the accident because the Plaintiff was injured on the bridge and was unable to receive insurance proceeds from the accident. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not responsible for the part. The hospital expenses also did not provide insurance treatment, and thus, they are responsible for the Plaintiff by preventing the insurance treatment.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 29,00,000 to Defendant B, and KRW 6,00,00,00 to Defendant C due to deception or intimidation by the Defendants. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the declaration of intent to pay money to the Defendants through deception or intimidation would cancel the payment made by deception or intimidation, the payment itself cannot be deemed as a juristic act subject to cancellation as a factual act. Since the Plaintiff revoked, the Defendants must return the money received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

In addition, since the Defendants acquired money from the Plaintiff by deception as above, the Defendants were to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort.