(영문) 대구지방법원 2012.09.20 2012나6606 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2012.09.20 2012나6606

부당이득금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around April 28, 2011, the Plaintiff heard the horses that any group of individuals in a false name who misrepresented the NA employee want to withdraw money from the Plaintiff’s account, notified the credit card number and password, and deposited KRW 10 million to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant with loans granted under the Plaintiff’s name.

(hereinafter “this case’s Bosing crime”). (b)

B. On April 26, 2011, the Defendant sent to C a copy of the account of his national bank account, debit cards, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “passbook, etc.”) at the request of a person who was named in the name, in order to receive the loan, after hearing the statement that the Defendant would release the loan from new financial C, and at the request of the person who was named in the name.

C. Money deposited as above to the national bank account in the name of the defendant was entirely withdrawn on the same day.

On the other hand, on August 17, 201, the defendant was investigated into violation of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act against the issuing act of the above passbook, etc., and was subject to a disposition by the Yeongdeungpo-gu District Prosecutors' Office on the ground of lack of evidence.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the defendant received KRW 10 million from the plaintiff without any legal ground to inflict damages equivalent to the same amount on the plaintiff, and he gains profits equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the above KRW 10 million in unjust enrichment to the plaintiff. Preliminaryly, even if the defendant did not commit the crime in collusion with the name in his name, it was at fault that made it easy for the defendant to commit the instant Bosing by delivering passbook, etc. established in his name. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 10 million in compensation for damages caused by the tort to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

(a) Judgment 1 on the primary claim is between the remitter and the addressee.

참조조문

-전자금융거래법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2012.09.20 2012나6606

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.03.28 2018고단741

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.24 2015고단1504

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.13 2015고단3350

-서울북부지방법원 2020.07.23 2020고단1575