1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition following the 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

B. In addition, considering the following circumstances as a whole, the evidence added as mentioned above and the result of a computer appraisal conducted by an appraiser AM as a whole, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was either disclosed, exposed, or neglected its means of access, financial information, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was insufficient.

(A) The Plaintiff’s computer was used by a large number of users, including ASEAN, including the Plaintiff, for December 5, 2014. The storage device was last format around January 8, 2013, prior to the occurrence of the instant financial transaction.

The party appraiser carried out the work of restoring the deleted Pool and file, etc., and on the Plaintiff’s computer, it was not confirmed whether the infringement of external persons using malicious codes, such as hacking and virus, and whether the information was leaked through phishing, mining, etc.

(B) The Plaintiff’s computer with its validity period from September 26, 2013 to September 26, 2014 stored an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name. However, the authorized certificate is issued for share transaction through Samsung Securities Co., Ltd. and is irrelevant to the instant financial transaction.

(C) The Plaintiff’s computer did not discover an authorized certificate re-issuance or a copy of the security card necessary for the instant financial transaction, and the real object of the security card used for the instant financial transaction is currently owned by the Plaintiff.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lost the above security card or that there was an omission of the number, etc. stated in the security card, or the disclosure or neglect of the number, etc. stated in the security card.

(D) Meanwhile, on the other hand.