1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant H’s KRW 8,800 and its corresponding amount from April 3, 2014; Defendant H’s KRW 2,800,000 and its amount.

1. Determination as to the claims against Defendant B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K

A. (1) The above Defendants transferred the cash card, etc. of each of the accounts listed in the separate sheet 1 to the bearers and notified the passwords.

(2) On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff received a telephone from an unqualified person who is called as a lending consultant, and transferred the amount of money transferred as stated in attached Table 1 to the said Defendants’ account from February 18, 2014 to February 24, 2014, under the pretext of lending fees, etc.

(3) The person who was unaware of name had withdrawn the amount indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 from the said Defendants’ account.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7; each statement of each evidence of Nos. 7; each order to submit financial transaction information; and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the aforementioned Defendants should return the amount that the Plaintiff remitted to the Plaintiff, as such, should return it to the Plaintiff.

(2) 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 is entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the beneficiary in a case where the beneficiary’s property gains did not have a legal ground, on the basis of the principle of equity and justice, in which the beneficiary’s property gains did not have a legal ground, and thus, is not subject to the duty of return if the beneficiary did not have a substantial benefit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Sept. 8, 201). In this case, the Plaintiff’s account was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the said Defendants’ account and then withdrawn the remaining money excluding the amount of unjust enrichment indicated in attached Table 1.

Thus, Defendant H and K.