손해배상(기)
2018dada 119312 Compensation (ar)
○ ○
Daegu Northern-gu
Law Firm Tae (Law Firm Tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellant] Jinology and Kim Chungcheong
A Stock Company
Gangnam-gu Seoul
Representative Director;
Law Firm Green, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant-Appellant]
February 20, 2019
April 3, 2019
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 91,80,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 13, 2018 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a member of the dedicated set of money that is a transaction site of the dedicated currency, and the Defendant is a company that operates the dedicated set of money.
B. another site, which deals with “Tron”, has another site. On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff sent the “Tron” from the dedicated to the dedicated to △△△△, to the dedicated to △△△△2, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion
On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff intended to transmit 1,800,00 of Tron 1,80,000 to the Plaintiff’s electronic wallet opened in △△△△△△, which was established in the electronic wallet, on June 12, 2018 (hereinafter “the transmission of this case”). The Plaintiff intended to transmit 1,80,000 of Tron 1,80,000 to the Plaintiff’s electronic wallet, which was established in △△△△△△. The Plaintiff divided the Plaintiff’s electronic wallet address in the computer cover address column, and divided crul +v key into the face address column of the dedicated site and applied for withdrawal. The transmission of this case was made to another address than the above electronic wall address (hereinafter “the transmission of this case”). In other words, even if the transmission of this case was due to the Plaintiff’s error operated by the Defendant, and even if it was due to any inherent incomplete nature, the Defendant did not have any obligation to notify such error to the Plaintiff in advance.
B. Determination
In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff sent Twitlon to another electronic wallet address based on the Defendant’s mistake, i.e., errors or incompleteness inherent in the chipary, although the Plaintiff had accurately entered the electronic wall address, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Twitlon was sent to another electronic wallet address.
① From May 23, 2018 to June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff sent 44 times in total to the address of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s electronic fingerprints opened in △△○○○○○○○) identical with the instant transmission. Moreover, the number of times the transmission was sent on the same day as the instant transmission was 6, and only one time after the instant transmission was sent, and there was no error in the remainder transmission except the instant transmission.
(2) The possibility that the Plaintiff had mistakenly input his/her address on an electronic wall shall not be ruled out.
③ The Plaintiff’s error or hacking possibility used in the transmission of the instant case cannot be ruled out.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Lee Jae-seok