1. Defendant E’s KRW 4,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 11, 2014 to August 28, 2014.

1. Indication of claims against Defendant E: The grounds for the claims are as shown in the attached Form;

Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Claims against Defendant B, C, D, F, G, and H

(a) same as the basic facts in the separate sheet of reasons for the claim;

[Ground of Recognition] The absence of dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 to 3, us bank, SK Securities of this Court, IBK Bank, IBK Bank, Han Bank, and Treatment Securities, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment (1) as to the plaintiff's assertion of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff asserted that the above defendants received money from the plaintiff without any legal ground and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff, and thus the above defendants should return each of the above amounts as unjust enrichment.

(B) In a case where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer through a account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee, the remitter shall be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount to the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, in a case where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party on the basis of the principle of fairness and justice, and thus, the benefiting party cannot be held liable to return if there is no substantial benefit on the part of the benefiting party.

I would like to say.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201). As seen earlier, the Defendants received deposits from the Plaintiff, as indicated in the grounds for the claim, as seen earlier. However, in the case of Bosing fraud, the Defendants had already deceiving the victim when the money of the victim was transferred to a deposit account in the name of a third party.