beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff received the phone of the under-paid person (so-called "Singishing") that he/she would give a loan at a low interest rate on May 15, 2014, and requested the Plaintiff to lend the loan, and the under-paid person would have given a loan to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff would have given a guarantee that he/she would have given a loan to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff wired KRW 2,70,000 to the account under C as the cost of issuing the letter of guarantee on the same day. On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to the deception of the under-paid person, and again transferred KRW 2 million to the post office account under the name of the Defendant, but did not grant a loan, and it can be acknowledged that the above KRW 2 million transferred to the account under the name of the Defendant on the same day was most deposited in the name of the under-paid person on the same day.
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant transferred the passbook and password to the person under whose name the passbook was named, and as at the time of transfer, it could have sufficiently predicted that the above passbook was used for the crime, the defendant shall be liable for damages caused by negligence, and thus, he shall compensate the plaintiff for the above KRW 2,00,000.
3. In the event an electronic financial transaction has been conducted through the means of access, in order to impose liability for damages caused by negligence on the transferor of the means of access on the ground that the legal effect by such electronic financial transaction exceeds the burden on the holder of the means of access, and constitutes an individual tort, based on the specific circumstances at the time of the transfer of the means of access, and the fact that the use of such means of access would facilitate the tort is foreseeable by the nominal owner that proximate causal relation exists between the transfer of the means of access and the damage caused by the tort.