1. The Plaintiff:

A. As from May 21, 2015, Defendant B’s KRW 3,000,000 and its related thereto:

B. Defendant C is 2,99,454 and 2,99.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s financial transaction information by accessing the false public prosecutor’s office site that “the Plaintiff’s name head is used in fraud, which connects the website of the public prosecutor’s office and enters the password of an authorized certificate and account.”

B. On December 30, 2014, by using the Plaintiff’s financial transaction information to the Plaintiff’s new bank account from the Plaintiff’s foreign exchange bank account, KRW 6,200,000 to the Defendant’s new bank account; KRW 6,150,000 to the Defendant’s new bank account; KRW 6,200,000 to the Defendant’s new bank account; and KRW 6,200,000 to the Defendant’s foreign exchange bank account; and most of the funds transferred as above were deposited to the Defendant’s new bank account.

C. Afterwards, the Plaintiff received respectively KRW 201,091 from the Defendant C’s account, KRW 189,60 from the Defendant D’s account, and KRW 6,071,480 from the Defendant E’s account.

2. Claim against Defendant B, C, and E

A. We examine the occurrence of joint tort liability. According to the above facts, since the plaintiff's money was immediately withdrawn from each account of defendant B, C, and E, it can be sufficiently confirmed that the above defendants' passbook, cash card, and password was transferred to the person under whose name the money was transferred. Considering the fact that the transfer of the means of access under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is prohibited, and the telephone financial fraud crime under the so-called "Sphishing" occurred across the country since several years ago, and the fact that the passbook, physical card, etc. can be used for the above crime is widely known. However, even if the above defendants conspired with the person under whose name the money was not actively involved in the telephone financial fraud of the person under whose name the money was transferred, the above defendants did not participate in the above crime.