1. Defendant B’s KRW 6,100,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 28, 201 to November 22, 201, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, D, and E

A. Fact-finding ① On September 27, 201, the Plaintiff received a phone from a person who had misrepresented the investigator of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office to use the passbook which was stolen in the name of the Plaintiff, and transferred KRW 6,100,000 to the account in the name of Defendant C, D, and E, respectively.

② The above Defendants were allowed to use one’s own name account after hearing the statement that they would cause loans from a person under whose name the account was not given. The person under whose name the account was given money from the Plaintiff and then withdrawn each of the above money from the said Defendants’ account in the name of the said Defendants.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion and its decision 1) The plaintiff asserts that the above defendants should return each of the above money to the plaintiff, because the plaintiff transferred the above money to the account under the name of the above defendant to the above defendant without any legal ground. The above defendants asserted that the above defendants should return the above money to the plaintiff. The above defendants are offered to the plaintiff, or offered the passbook, etc. under the name of the above defendants to the above defendants, and at least the above defendants, and facilitate the fraud of the above defendants. Thus, the plaintiff should pay the above money and the damages for delay to the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor. 2) The plaintiff's main argument was examined as to the plaintiff's main argument, and the facts that the plaintiff transferred the above money to the account under the name of the above defendant. However, it is difficult to conclude that the above defendants made unjust enrichment, the plaintiff's main argument is without merit.

3) Whether the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion is determined or not) Article 760(3) of the Civil Act, which constitutes a tort, is deemed to be an instigated person.