209 Gohap7499 Return of unjust enrichment, etc.

Fire Insurance Corporation

The representative director of this Act, the letter A2

Law Firm Dongi, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Chungcheong-hee, and Kim Jong-il

1. FixedB1 (73 years old, South)

2. Korea;

Legal Representative Lee b2 (Jurisdiction: Post Office in Jin-si)

Attorney Cho Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

3. Sick-si:

Representative Market Administration 23

Law Firm Seo-Gyeong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

October 14, 2009

November 4, 2009

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant AB1’s 328,005,000 won and 5% per annum from May 28, 2004 to November 4, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

B. Defendant U.S. Republic of Korea shall pay 98,401,500 won among the amount stated in Defendant U.S. AB1 and each of the above paragraph (a) and 5% interest per annum from May 28, 2004 to November 4, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea and the claims against defendant Jin-si are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeong-B1 is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeong-si is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 328,005,00 won with 5% interest per annum from May 28, 2004 to the date of this judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are deemed to have been white among the plaintiff and the defendant JeongB1 pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant Byung-B1, or between the plaintiff, the defendant Byung-B1, and Jin-si, or the parties to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-2, 2-1, 3, 4-1, 2, 5-5-1 through 8, 6-1 through 3, 7, 5-7, 2-2, and 4, and the whole purport of the arguments can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments.

A. On April 24, 1990, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Non-Party 1 as to vehicles of thisC1 owned by thisC1 and Non-Party 2 suffered injury, such as the c3 driver's error of the central line, while driving the above Busan 2 Ec1 on May 27, 1990, while driving the road where the name asbestos is located in Jinju-si, Non-Party 2 was driving the above Busan 2 Ec1 on May 27, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

B. Defendant 1: (a) knew that 3, his pro-friendly 3 was a 2nd 3rd son and was involved in consultation with the Plaintiff due to the above accident; (b) had a 2nd 3rd son 1’s 3rd son 2nd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 1st 2002 1st 3rd 4th 206th 1st 3rd 4th 206th 1st 3th 3th 206th 1st 3th 4th 206th 3th 1st 4th 3th 200 3th 3th 1st 3th 200 3rd 4th 1st 206th 20 3th 200 3th 3th 205 of 3rd 200 3rd 4th 200 3rd 205.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant AB1

(a) Description of the claim;

Defendant JeongB1, who was wired to the account of this case for the purpose of c3 insurance money due to the accident of this case and acquired by transfer to the account of this case, and claim for the payment of 328,005,000 won

B. Determination

Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, a financial institution affiliated with the defendant Republic of Korea, committed a violation of the duty of care to investigate the identity verification of the deposit owner or the existence of the power of attorney at the time of opening a deposit account and withdrawing the deposit account, thereby opening the account of this case in the name of C3 to the defendant HaB1 without the consent of C3. Accordingly, the plaintiff, as the above account was mistaken for the normal intention of C3, thereby causing damage to be paid to C3 by remitting the insurance money to be paid to C3 to the above account, so the defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss caused by the negligence of the public official under his jurisdiction.

2) Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the establishment of this case’s account and the Plaintiff’s damage did not constitute a non-violation of caution since it fulfilled its duty of identification, etc.

B. Determination

1) Occurrence of damages liability

A) In the event of opening an account, the breach of the obligation to verify the account

(1) The deposit account opened in a financial institution is not simply used by a person who opened the account in order to deposit or withdraw money, but also actively used as a means to collect or repay bonds, debts, etc. which he/she acquired or came to have with a third party in daily life or business activities due to the activation of credit transactions and the development of the online remittance and fund transfer system. If a financial institution opens a deposit account with a person in his/her own jurisdiction and does not fully perform the minimum procedure of confirmation, such as confirmation of its identity card or receipt of power of representation and certificate of personal seal impression, and verification of his/her agent identification card, it can be easily predicted that the crime of receiving money can be easily conducted by the person under whose name the money was established by transfer to the bank account under the name of the person under whose name the money was lawfully established by the person under whose name the money was transferred to the third party. Since there is no reasonable causal relationship between the person under whose name it was established in a financial institution and the person under whose name the money was wrongfully acquired by the person under whose name the money was transferred to the third party under the duty to receive the money.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) Defendant 3 was unable to open an account under the name of Nonparty 4-1, (b) 7, (c) or 2-3; and (b) Defendant 4’s testimony at the hearing of the witness C4; (c) Defendant 3 did not have any duty to open an account on April 25, 202; and (d) Defendant 3 had no capacity to open an account under the name of 3-2; (b) Defendant 1 had no capacity to open an account; (c) Defendant 3 had no capacity to open an account on behalf of 3-C; (d) Defendant 3 had no capacity to open an account; (e) had no capacity to verify the account; (e) had no capacity to open an account; and (e) had no capacity to open an account under the name of 3-C 4-B; and (e) had no capacity to open an account on the same day; and (e) had no capacity to open an account on the part of 3-C 3-B-3-H account.

(3) Therefore, in opening an account, the C4 of the Defendant’s post office employees under the control of the Republic of Korea opened a bank account with Defendant UB1, in violation of the obligation to verify the identity, and thereby, Defendant UB1 could have taken over the insurance money to the said account by deceiving the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between negligence in the obligation to verify the identity at the time of opening the said account and the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s damage. Therefore, Defendant U.S. is liable for compensation for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by negligence in the course of performing its duties.

B) Claim of violation of one’s duty of confirmation upon withdrawal of deposits

The plaintiff asserted that the employee in charge of the post office at the time of withdrawal of insurance money remitted to the deposit account of this case was negligent in failing to verify the account owner's identity or to verify the existence of the right of representation. However, according to the document No. 5 of this case, the post office's deposit transaction terms and conditions are identical with the seal imprint affixed to the deposit payment application and the seal imprint attached thereto, and if the deposit was paid after confirming the identity of the password, it cannot be said that the employee in charge of the post office has a duty of care to confirm the account owner's identity or the existence of the right of representation at the time of withdrawal of the deposit of this case. Thus, as long as the defendant JeongB 1 withdraws the deposit by using the seal and password of C3 his custody at the time of withdrawal of the deposit from the deposit account of this case, the above assertion by the plaintiff is without merit.

2) Limitation on liability

However, considering the above facts and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5-1, 5-8, 8, 4-9, 2-2, and 3, and 3-4, the witness testimony of the Republic of Korea as a whole, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) at the time when the late-C4 opens a deposit account in the name of C3, it was attached to the application form by copying the resident registration certificate of Y 1 and C3’s welfare card and attaching it to the application form; (ii) the Plaintiff, as an agent, transferred insurance money to the existing deposit account in C3’s name for a long time; and (iii) the Plaintiff, as an agent, did not request the Plaintiff to transfer the money to another account for a limited period of time; and (iv) there was no doubt that the Plaintiff paid the money to the Defendant 3 or 5-3’s family members without any other agreement to verify the amount of damages to the Defendant 1’s account; and (iii) the Plaintiff did not request the change of the money to the account for a limited period of 3%.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant JungB1 and each Plaintiff (i.e., 98,401,50 won (i.e., 328,005,000 won which Defendant JungB1 acquired by transfer to the account of this case) and as sought by the Plaintiff after the date of the above illegal act, Defendant JungB1 is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 28, 2004 to the date of this judgment and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Jinju

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the public official in charge of the issuance of a certificate of seal impression of the salary-dong office under the jurisdiction of the defendant Jinju-si was liable for the above damages because the plaintiff caused the plaintiff to mistake the defendant Y1 as a legitimate agent of C3, thereby signing an agreement with the defendant YB1 on the insurance money and remitting the insurance money to the account designated by YB1, and acquired it by fraud, and the defendant Jin-si was liable for compensation for the above damages.

2) Defendant Jinju's assertion

Defendant Jin-si asserts that there is no negligence in the process of issuing the said certificate of seal imprint and there is no causal link between the issuance of the said certificate of seal imprint and the Plaintiff’s damage, as Defendant Jin-si had issued the said certificate to Defendant Jin-si according to the procedures under the Certification of Seal Imprint Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act.

B. Determination

1) Since the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal imprint itself has extremely important functions in transactions between the Plaintiff and his/her agent at the same time as the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal imprint, a public official handling the affairs of the said certificate of seal imprint is obligated to prevent fraudulent acts arising from his/her rights and obligations. Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between the issuance of the above certificate of seal imprint and the damages arising therefrom if the person who entered into a contract with the name of the said certificate of seal imprint issued was 1 and 3 under the premise that the former Act on the Issuance of 40 Certificates of Seal Imprint (amended by Act No. 667 of March 25, 202) and the former Enforcement Decree of the said Act were issued on behalf of the agent at the time of issuance of the said certificate of seal imprint 1 and 3, and thus, the said certificate of seal imprint 1 and the former Enforcement Decree of the said Act should not be deemed to have been issued on behalf of the applicant or his/her agent at the time of issuance of the said certificate of seal imprint 2.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jinju is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jung-B1 is accepted on the ground of its reason, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jung-B1 is accepted on the ground of its ground within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claim is dismissed on the ground of its ground, and it is dismissed on the ground of its ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Chief Judge Park Tae-tae

Judge Lee Dong-dong

Judges' Quota