beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 12,008,544 as well as 5% per annum from October 7, 2014 to January 19, 2016, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a phone call from a person under whose name the Plaintiff misrepresented the inspection, stating that “the head of a passbook in the name of the Plaintiff appears to have occurred; (b) the second damage is likely to arise; (c) access to E and confirmed the fact of complaint; (d) access to the above website on the same day; and entered the account number and password, etc. in accordance with the instructions of the website; and (c) on the same day, using the Plaintiff’s above information, transferred KRW 6,150,000 from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Defendant B to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant B; (d) the Nonparty transferred KRW 24,50,000 in total from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant B; and (e) KRW 6,500,000 in the name of the Plaintiff’s bank account in
B. From 6,150,00 won deposited in Defendant B’s name, KRW 5,97,595 out of KRW 24,50,000 deposited in Defendant C’s name; KRW 6,50,017,089 out of KRW 6,50,00 deposited in Defendant D’s name; and KRW 6,003,726 out of KRW 6,50,00 deposited in Defendant D’s name; and the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy for damage with the Financial Supervisory Service pursuant to the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and the Refund of Damages, and received each refund of the remaining balance ( KRW 152,405 from Defendant B’s account, KRW 482,911 from Defendant C’s account, and KRW 496,274 from Defendant D’s account, respectively.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Although it was sufficiently foreseeable that the Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff could be used for the crime of telephone financial fraud, such as singing, etc., the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount stated in the claim as damages for tort, since they provided the Defendants with a deposit account in the name of the Defendants.
3. Determination
A. The part of the claim against Defendant B and D was examined, and the Defendants intentionally committed any tort.