2010Na7760 Damages

Kim 00

1. Korea;

2. 00

3. AnchorO;

4. Won 00

nan

1. All of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendants jointly and severally filed with the plaintiff 9, 834, 552 won and the plaintiff 208.

11. From 30. to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and from the next day to the day of complete payment.

of 20% per annum, the Corporation shall pay 20% interest.

1. Basic facts

A. 00: (a) 40: (a) in collusion with the person under whose name it is not possible to refund health insurance fees; (b) 5: (c) the insured of the National Health Insurance for the purpose of making a false call out of the phone; (d) the person operating the cash withdrawal machine in accordance with his direction; and (e) the person under whose name it was transferred by means of account transfer to the Japanese bank account with the amount of 00; (d) the person under whose name it was 7:0 on November 30, 2008; (e) the person under whose name it was 4:5:0 won from the above 7:00 won from the above 4:0 won from the above 70-day bank; (e) the person under whose name it was 4:0 won from the above 70-day bank account; and (e) the person under whose name it was 7:0 won from the above 70-day bank account to the Plaintiff, waiting to make a false cash withdrawal; and (e) the Plaintiff’s account number 1.

B. On November 30, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) immediately after remitting money to the said Japanese bank account in the name of U.S. 00; (b) reported the fact of damage inflicted on the so-called scaming received; and (c) on November 30, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the fact of damage inflicted on the reporting center at the 112 reporting center at the Scam Police Station 112.

C. Accordingly, Defendant 00, who was a slope belonging to the said bank, and Defendant 1, who was patroled around the said bank, received the Plaintiff’s damage damage by having been called to the scene after receiving a report on damage, and Defendant 2, a patroler, handed over the Plaintiff’s personal disease to Defendant 00, a police station for investigation, and a police station for investigation of the instant case on November 30, 2008, where the Plaintiff was carrying the Plaintiff on the patrol vehicle, and the Defendant 20, an intelligence team (Assistant) was handed over the Plaintiff’s personal disease.

D. However, according to the fact that the payment suspension procedure for the above U.S. account is not implemented promptly, the U.S. 00 withdrawn KRW 10,000,000,000, which was deposited in the account in the name of 00 from 57 to 10:15, from 2008 following the following day.

E. The U.S. 00 was prosecuted for the above fraud, and was finally convicted, and was finally convicted (Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. 21 May 2009, Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma.

F. After that, the Plaintiff only recovered 1,90,000 won out of the above amount of damage, but failed to recover the remainder.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties, or the purport of Gap 1 to 6 as a whole and all pleadings.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the instant claim.

Defendant 10 is a police officer on duty on duty of the head of Sin Do Police Station intelligence 1 team in charge of Bophishing investigation. Defendant 20 is a police officer on duty who first received a report and received a report on the Plaintiff’s damage. Upon receipt of the report, Defendant 20 is obligated to jointly compensate the Plaintiff for all property damage (9, 834, 552 won out of the amount of Bophishing damage) due to such negligence, since Defendant 2 had a duty of care to take appropriate measures to prevent U.S. from withdrawing the said money from withdrawing the said money from its own account, such as (i) providing the Plaintiff with contact with each bank; (ii) providing the Plaintiff to direct contact with the bank call center on behalf of the Plaintiff, or (iii) registering the account with the Plaintiff as an illegal account, and (iv) failing to collect the said money from 00,000, the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff as a public official under the provisions of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the same damage.

B. This Court does not accept all the Plaintiff’s respective arguments for the following reasons.

(1) First, there is no evidence to prove that there was negligence on the part of the Defendant 00, and Gao on the part of any official duty.

(2) Next, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of argument 0: Gap 2, Eul 6, Eul 1 and 13, the plaintiff did not know about the above 00 account number on November 30, 2008, and the plaintiff did not know about the 20-day account number and 00-day account number and 10-day account number were not known to the defendant bank, and the plaintiff did not know about the 20-day account number and 0-day account number and 0-day account number were not known to the defendant bank. The plaintiff did not know about the 10-day account number and 0-day account number and 20-day account number were not known to the defendant bank. The plaintiff did not know about the 20-day account number and 00-day account number and 10-day account number were not known to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not know about the 20-day account number and 20-day account number.

(3) Finally, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge the remaining Defendants’ occupational negligence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant Republic of Korea cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the judgment of the first instance court that did not accept all of the claims of the Plaintiff is justifiable, all of the Plaintiff’s appeals are not accepted.

Judges Park Jong-dae

Judges Bo Jong-ho

Judges Park Jong-jin