1. As to the Defendant’s application for remedy for damage caused by telecommunications-based financial fraud, the Plaintiff’s financial account (D Bank E) on July 12, 2018.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff: (a) is a company that operates an Exchange H (hereinafter “the instant Exchange”) mediating the cryptism; (b) opened an account for the cryptism transaction (Account Number: E; hereinafter “the instant Plaintiff account”); and (c) made the registered members of the instant Exchange available the instant Plaintiff account to be used for the cryptism transaction.

F was a member of the instant exchange and traded with the Plaintiff as its financial account (I Bank J, hereinafter “the instant remittance account”).

On July 12, 2018, the Defendant transferred 28,700,000 won (hereinafter “instant transfer”) from the financial account under the name of the Defendant to the IF bank account in the name of F to the IF bank account (the instant remittance account) to the Bophish criminal who misrepresented the inspection, etc. on July 12, 2018.

After that, 8,700,000 won was remitted from the instant remittance account in the F’s name to the instant Plaintiff account, and was used in the following encryption transaction.

After such remittance, the Defendant filed an application with the financial institution for suspension of payment on the ground that the remittance account of this case was used for Bophishing, and accordingly, D Bank suspended payment of KRW 8,700,000 out of the Plaintiff’s deposit pursuant to the Act and subordinate statutes (Special Act on Prevention of Damage Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, and the summary of the argument of the parties to the entire purport of the argument, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not participate in the crime of Bosing at all. In addition, the defendant was unaware of the fact that the defendant remitted the funds of this case due to the crime of Bosing at issue. Since the plaintiff used the won point equivalent to the money deposited into the plaintiff's account as the purchase price for crypt, it was used as the purchase price for crypt, the plaintiff did not make unjust enrichment against the defendant.

The defendant's assertion F.