beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant C’s KRW 5,994,50 and its related amount are 5% per annum from August 4, 2014 to February 13, 2015.
Reasons
1. On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff received a call from an unqualified person, and accordingly transferred 5,359,900 won from the account in the name of the Plaintiff’s name to the account of the Korea Saemaul Depository in the name of the Defendant B, and 5,952,200 won from the account in the name of the Defendant C to the account of the Korea Saemaul Depository in the name of the Defendant C, and 5,962,200 won from the account of the Korea Saemaul Depository in the name of the Defendant D to the account of the Korea Saemaul Depository in the name of the Defendant D (7,000 won refund) and 11,934,400 won from the account of the Korea Saemaul Depository in the name of the Defendant E (4,953,971 won refund).
The Defendants seek the payment of money from which the amount of refund is deducted from the amount transferred from each Plaintiff’s account due to unjust enrichment or joint tort.
2. For Defendant C and E: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B and D
A. The portion of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is that, in a case where the benefiting of the benefiting party did not have any legal cause, the duty of return is imposed on the benefiting party on the basis of the principle of fairness and justice, but if the benefiting party does not have any substantial benefit
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Sept. 8, 201). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B and D actually acquired financial benefits, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge such fact.
B. In cases where an electronic financial transaction was conducted through the means of access to a claim for damages caused by tort, to impose liability for damages caused by negligence on the transferor of the means of access on the ground that the legal effect under such electronic financial transaction exceeds imposing on the holder of the means of access, the said electronic financial transaction constitutes an individual tort, based on the specific circumstances at the time of transfer of the means of access