손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or recognize the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2, and 1. A
On November 5, 2018, the Defendant received a guide from a name-free person to the effect that “a loan is extended to ordinary people: Provided, That the Defendant’s credit rating is low so that it can obtain a loan by using a method which can make it possible for a short term due to low credit rating,” and then notified the account of community credit cooperatives under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant account”) to the Defendant, and agreed to accept it.
B. On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred 4.7 million won to the instant account, i.e., the Plaintiff: “Around November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff, who opened a credit rating by using a loan to ordinary people, is able to lend the existing loan at a low interest rate; and the existing loan should be repaid first. If deposit is made to the employee’s account, the commission is low and the loan will be made after confirmation.”
C. On the other hand, around November 8, 2018, the Defendant received a proposal that “If the Defendant’s transaction record is insufficient and the Defendant deposited money into the trust company’s account, then the Defendant withdraws the deposit and deliver it to the employee.”
On November 9, 2018, the Defendant deposited KRW 26 million with the instant account at KRW 10,000,000, the Defendant withdrawn the deposit in cash and delivered it to the party in default of name. Although the Plaintiff intended to withdraw and deliver the money in cash, the Plaintiff failed to withdraw and deliver it to the instant account, it did not withdraw it due to the suspension of transaction.
The Financial Supervisory Commission announced the commencement of the claim extinction procedure to the account of this case in accordance with the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss from Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and the Refund of Loss, and subsequently, made a refund of KRW 30,268,764 to the Plaintiff while distributing the remaining money to the victims deposited in the account in the following procedure.
E. The Plaintiff’s subsequent crime of telephone financial fraud is easy for the Plaintiff.