1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant E, KRW 400,000,000, and Defendant limited liability company.

1. On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff received text messages to cause loan counseling from an unqualified person, and then sent each corresponding amount to the bank account under the name of the Defendants, including transfer of KRW 650,000 to the bank account in the name of Defendant B, after hearing the horses that “the prepaid repayment and the advance payment to implement the loan” was made by posting the phone to the unqualified person, and at the end of the aforementioned false statement, remitting the money to the bank account in the name of Defendant B by November 9, 2012, as shown in attached Table 2 “the details of deposits by date.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fraud”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The part of the judgment made based on the confession.

A. Defendant C, H, L, N,O, Q, R, S, and AA may have sufficiently predicted that the said Defendants’ bank account under their names may be used for the instant fraud, but aiding and abetting the Defendants to readily prevent the instant fraud by transferring a passbook, etc. to a person under their name, so that the Defendants could not commit the instant fraud. As such, Defendant C, H, N, N, N, Q, Q, R, and A had a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for considerable damages to the money remitted to the account in the said Defendants’ name, the said Defendants shall be deemed to have led to confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. In accordance with Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, the above Defendants shall be deemed to have led to the confession of the following allegations by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, including Defendant B, E, and limited liability company.

(1) The plaintiff remitted 650,000 won to the defendant Eul's account. The above defendant has a duty to return 512,704 won which remains in the above money as unjust enrichment, and the above defendant has a duty to return it. Although it was sufficiently foreseeable that the bank account in his own name can be used for the crime of fraud of this case, the defendant can readily block the fraud of this case by transferring the means of access, such as passbooks and cash cards, to the defendant Eul.