beta
Text
Defendant B’s KRW 70,500,000 and its amount are 5% per annum from June 20, 2019 to September 10, 2020.
Reasons
1. In fact, Defendant B issued a means of access, such as a bank account in his name (F; hereinafter “Defendant B’s name”) and its password, to the person in violation of the name.
On June 19, 2019, the Plaintiff heard the speech that “the only passbook was discovered by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and is under investigation, and the Plaintiff should prove that the Plaintiff is a victim,” and informed the names of the victims of the information, such as the OTP number, by telephone from a person who misrepresented the G inspection.”
From June 19, 2019 to June 20, 2019 by using the information acquired as above, the nominal holder transferred KRW 141,00,000 in total from the Hbank account under the Plaintiff’s name (I; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s name account”) to the Defendant B’s name, and immediately thereafter, transferred KRW 227,30,000 in total from the Defendant’s name account to the Jbank account under the Defendant C’s name (K; hereinafter “Defendant C’s name account”).
(hereinafter “instant fraud crime.” From June 19, 2019 to June 20, 2019, Defendant C transferred KRW 268,000,000 to Defendant D’s L Bank account (M; hereinafter “Defendant D’s account”).
[Basis] Defendant B: The judgment by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act); Defendant C and D: Not dispute; Gap's 1, 2, 3, 8; Eul's 2; Eul's 1; the court's L; the result of each order to submit financial information to J; the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. Determination as to the primary claim (the claim for return of unjust enrichment against Defendant D)
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants conspired with the Plaintiff’s employees in charge of scaming ( telephone financial fraud) and acquired KRW 141,00,000 from the Plaintiff through the instant fraud crime. Defendant D received the said money without any legal cause and obtained the profit equivalent to the said amount, and thus, is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) Defendant D’s assertion is the Defendant.