beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가단5169711

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with A, “Undividend PCA Droutton Pension Policy” in the name of the goods, and the name of the goods between B and B, “Non-dividend PCA Down Social Insurance III” in the name of the goods.

B. Around April 2013, 2013, C/D’s tort 1) forged A’s resident registration certificate using D’s photograph, and B’s resident registration certificate was forged on or around October 2013. (2) D, on May 27, 2013, presented a forged A’s resident registration certificate to the Defendant Daegu Fund Depository, and opened A’s account (Account Number: E; hereinafter “instant First Account”) under the name of A by presenting the forged A’s resident registration certificate, and filed an application for Internet banking with respect to the said account, and obtained the issuance of A’s official registration certificate.

C On May 27, 2013, by accessing the Plaintiff’s Internet homepage, the Plaintiff changed the address and mobile phone number of A’s customer information to his/her address and telephone number. On the same day, upon visiting the Plaintiff’s Daegu last maintenance point, he/she applied for the insurance contract loan of KRW 64 million. On the same day, the Plaintiff transferred the loan of KRW 64 million to the First Account.

3) On October 18, 2013, D presented the resident registration certificate under the above forged name to Defendant Seocho-gu, Defendant Seo-gu, as seen above, and the account in B’s name (Account Number: F; hereinafter “instant Second Account”) is deemed as having been committed as if he/she was B.

B. A opened an Internet banking system, applied for the Internet banking system for the foregoing account, and obtained a security card, and obtained an authorized certificate in A’s name through this.

C On October 22, 2013, by accessing the Plaintiff’s Internet homepage, the address of the customer information in B, which was issued as above, was changed to the address where the customer information could be contacted.