beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.14 2019가단13823

손해배상

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 12,500,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 7, 2019 to May 14, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2019, the Plaintiff sent KRW 25,000,000 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant B and KRW 19,00,000 to the Defendant C’s account, after hearing the phrase “AD bank employee is a low interest rate.” However, in order to create the Mapppbook, the Plaintiff received a loan due to lack of points, and then withdraws the loan again,” and subsequently, returned the amount of KRW 25,00,00 to the Defendant’s account.

B. On March 7, 2019, Defendant B, “I would provide loans. However, due to lack of transaction performance, I would like to create a transaction performance by withdrawing and delivering money to our employees that we would not execute due to lack of transaction performance,” notified Defendant B of the account number in the name of the Defendant B to the party in default, and released the money transferred to the said account by deceiving the Plaintiff by the person in default of name, and sent it to the person in default of name.”

C. On March 8, 2019, Defendant C, upon receiving a proposal, notified the account number in the name of Defendant C in the name of the person with no credit rating to the person with no credit rating, and then released the money transferred to the said account by deceiving the Plaintiff and sending the money to the person with no credit rating.

Defendant C on May 20, 2019

In regard to the suspicion of violating the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, such as the entry in the clause, suspension of indictment was imposed on the condition of completion of the preventive education program

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number, if any), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s account was deceiving multiple unspecified persons, such as the Plaintiff, at the time of transfer of the account number opened in their name to the bearers.