beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.01.14 2019가단573905

손해배상(기)

Text

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 11, 2019, the Plaintiff received the phone of a name influence who assumes his/her own E employee from the Plaintiff, and the name influence was determined as follows: “When sending money with a loan, the Plaintiff would repay money after raising credit rating; and 70 million won will be loaned.”

On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff wired KRW 40 million to the F bank account under Defendant B’s name, and wired KRW 15 million to Defendant C’s G bank account on the same day, and wired KRW 14.5 million to Defendant D’s G bank account on March 13, 2019 (hereinafter “each relevant account”).

(2) On March 12, 2019, Defendant B deposited the instant account into the instant Defendant B’s account, deposited the entire amount of KRW 40 million into the check, divided it into KRW 10 million and KRW 30 million into two occasions, and exchanged each name in cash on a two-time basis.

3) On March 12, 2019, Defendant C proposed to purchase virtual currency on behalf of the person in terms of his name, and, upon receipt of the proposal, Defendant C expressed that “I would pay a fee of 0.5% per the face value of the transfer of virtual currency to an electronic wall tag known to us by purchasing the virtual currency with the money sent by us,” and consented to this, Defendant C’s G bank account was known to the person in terms of his name.

When the Plaintiff’s above KRW 15 million deposited into the said G bank account, Defendant C transferred it to Defendant C’s G bank account registered in the virtual currency exchange, and then transferred it to Defendant C’s former bank account and notified the non-member of his name by purchasing the virtual currency.

4) On March 12, 2019, Defendant D sent money to us.

Defendant D’s G bank account of this case was known to the party who was not the party in whose name the account was named, with the phone that “I would pay 1% of the face value of the transfer to an electronic wall tag that we inform us of the virtual currency by purchasing the virtual currency with that money.”

Defendant D’s above 14,500.