beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 15, 2014 to November 26, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff: “In order to prevent damage to the Plaintiff’s bank account due to the exposure of personal information in the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff shall hear the horses that “in order to prevent the damage due to the Plaintiff’s bank account’s disclosure, the Plaintiff applied for telebanking in the Plaintiff’s name,” and subsequently, did not comply with the Plaintiff’s instructions, and then, the Plaintiff acquired the said money by defrauding KRW 6,00,000 from the Plaintiff’s agricultural bank account to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.
B. Around the above time, the Defendant delivered the passbook and debit card of the said account to the person who was named in the name of the account.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was involved in the fraudulent conduct of a person who has not obtained the name, and sought damages equivalent to KRW 6,000,000, which is the money obtained by defraudation of a person who has not obtained the name, to the Defendant.
In light of the fact that the transfer and acquisition of passbooks or cash cards, etc., which are the means of access under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, is prohibited, and the so-called "Singing" financial fraud crime is crossing across the country, and the reality that is used for the electronic financial fraud crime is widely known in the case of the transfer of the means of access, even though the defendant did not actively participate in the aforementioned telephone financial fraud crime against the person who has not obtained his/her name or who has not obtained his/her name, it shall be deemed that he/she assisted the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor pursuant to Article 760 (3) of the Civil Act, since he/she could have easily transferred the means of access to the electronic financial fraud, at least by facilitating the above criminal act of the person who has not received his/her name, and therefore, he/she shall be liable for damages to the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor pursuant to Article 760 (3) of the Civil