부당이득금반환
1. The Plaintiff:
(a) Defendant B: (a) from April 25, 2017, KRW 1,600,000 and its related thereto;
B. Defendant C shall be KRW 11,600,000, and
1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) on November 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was asked to offer a loan from an unqualified person; and (b) the Plaintiff was asked to receive a loan from the account under the name of the Plaintiff to the post office account under the name of the Defendant B; (c) KRW 29 million in total from the new bank account under the name of the Plaintiff and the national bank account under the name of the Defendant C to the bank account and the SC bank account under the name of the Defendant C; and (c) from the national bank account under the name of the Plaintiff to the Korean bank account under the name of the Defendant C; and (d) KRW 9 million in total from the national bank account under the name of the Plaintiff to the Korean bank account under the name of the Defendant D; and (e) the money transferred by the Plaintiff as above was entirely withdrawn from the account under the name of the Nonparty
[Ground of recognition] B B B between the Plaintiff and the other Defendants: The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Even though the Defendants did not actively participate in the so-called “phishing” criminal act of a person who has failed to name, the Defendants could have sufficiently predicted that the passbook, etc. could be used for “phishing” at the time of issuing a passbook, etc. opened in their own name when the crime took place as a social issue. Since there is a proximate causal link between aiding and abetting the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s damages by taking over the passbook, etc. against the Plaintiff by taking advantage of the “phishing” against the Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor by negligence under Article 760 of the Civil Act.
B. However, the Plaintiff did not properly confirm the fact that the crime of Bosing has emerged as a social issue, and was committed by account transfer in trust and with the care of the horses of the persons without his name, and such mistake contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the instant damage. Therefore, the Defendants’ liability is 40% in consideration of such circumstances.