1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 24, 2015 to December 20, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff, at around 13:00 on August 24, 2015, received a telephone call from a person who misrepresented to an investigative agency that “if personal information has been leaked and has been used for a crime, he/she shall enter personal information necessary for financial transactions by accessing the website of the prosecutor’s office.” The Plaintiff, upon accessing the website of the false prosecutor’s office directed by the person who did not receive his/her name, entered his/her financial transaction information, and informed him/her of the six numbers confirmed in his/her OTP security

B. The name-free person, without the Plaintiff’s consent, transferred KRW 60,000,000 from the SCB Bank account under the Plaintiff’s name to the IBK Bank account in the name of the Defendant, using the number of the OTP card that the Plaintiff informed to the financial transaction information and the telephone that the Plaintiff entered.

C. On the other hand, while the Defendant provided a loan counseling by telephone with a word from a person without a name-based reputation on August 24, 2015, the Defendant: “I would withdraw the money deposited in an account under the name of the Defendant in order to increase credit rating due to low credit rating; and I would like to provide a loan of KRW 40 million from a bank account under the name of the Defendant.” On August 24, 2015, the Defendant trusted the horses of the person with a name-based reputation and notified the account number of his bank. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant released 60,000,000 won deposited from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s account in cash and delivered it to the person with a name-based reputation who misrepresented the employees of a financial institution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is deemed to be the co-offender of telephone financial fraud in light of the circumstances of this case. Thus, the defendant bears the joint tort liability to the plaintiff along with his name and the plaintiff, and without any legal ground, takes over KRW 60,00,000 from the plaintiff and is liable to return the amount in unjust enrichment. Thus, the defendant shall pay the above amount and damages for delay.