(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.06.24 2014가단10686

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.06.24 2014가단10686

부당이득금반환 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts may be acknowledged by taking into account each of the descriptions in Gap evidence, evidence 1, 2-1, and 2, each of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was a telephone call that the Plaintiff could obtain a loan from an unqualified person who assumes the name of the Nonghyup Capital employee on February 27, 2014; and (b) from January 29, 2014 to March 17, 2014, under the name of the guaranteed insurance premium, transferred money as stated in the Defendants’ claim in the name of the account in the name of the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the instant Bosing”).

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants did not directly conduct the instant Bosing to the Plaintiff, but rather lent the passbook to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendants did not have any actual balance in the Defendants’ account, and thus, did not have any substantial profit.

Even if the Defendants constitute the nominal lender of the passbook, they could have sufficiently predicted that the passbook and cash card, which is the means of access to electronic finance prohibited from transfer under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, were issued from the financial institution and were transferred to the nominal lender at the time of transfer.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, as seen above, have aided and abetted the crime by opening a passbook and transferring it to a person with no name, are liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above amount.

B. In a case where an electronic financial transaction was made through the means of access, the said electronic financial transaction is deemed to constitute an individual transaction that took place through the relevant electronic financial transaction beyond imposing the legal effect on the nominal holder of the means of access, and thus, to impose liability for damages caused by negligence on the transferor. In order to impose liability for damages due to negligence on the transferor, it constitutes an individual transaction that takes place through

참조조문

-전자금융거래법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.01.29 2018가단75600

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나52721

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.04 2015나34672

-창원지방법원 2015.02.04 2014나7791

-울산지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단21730