1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2014, at around 17:59, the Plaintiff entered an OTP card number on a false website managed by financial frauds according to his/her instructions, following the phone call to the effect that “the Plaintiff received an application for his/her own certification” from the most poor financial frauds under the Defendant Company’s security team.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff subscribed to the “use phone designation service” in relation to the Defendant Company’s account transfer service. However, the said financial fraud offender connected to the Defendant Company’s Internet banking service, entered an OTP security card number offered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Company as above, and notified the Plaintiff via telephone to the Plaintiff who received two certified numbers from the Defendant Company, and ordered the Defendant Company’s certification center to enter the said certification number if the phone was erroneous at the National Bank Certification Center after diving.

C. The Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to enter two types of authentication numbers by posting a cell phone (B) registered with the Defendant Company as his contact address, and the Plaintiff entered the authentication numbers known to the financial fraud offender. D.

At around 18:48 on the same day, the financial fraud crime transferred the Plaintiff’s national bank account to C’s corporate bank account in total of KRW 9.87 million (hereinafter “instant transfer”) on four occasions, including transfer of KRW 2.98 million from C’s national bank account.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a mobile phone in the name of another person (the Plaintiff’s company name) rather than the Plaintiff’s mobile phone name, and the Defendant’s process of certification through the aforementioned mobile phone is a direct illegal act against the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the Telecommunications Fraud Refund Act.