beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff, who misrepresented a corporate bank loan counselor, issued a call that “loan is KRW 50 million from KRW 50,000 to KRW 70,000,000.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff informed the Plaintiff’s account, password, and the OTP number in the name of the Plaintiff with the documents necessary for the loan. If the loan is made, the loan will be deposited in the above passbook.” The Plaintiff issued a password and an OTP number in the name of the Plaintiff to the non-resident under the name of the Plaintiff, and the bank account in the above new bank account was KRW 90,259,126.
B. On September 17, 2014, a person who was unaware of his name borrowed KRW 7 million from a lot Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., and KRW 3 million from a lot Green Loan Co., Ltd., and deposited KRW 3 million into the above new bank account under the Plaintiff’s name. On the same day, he transferred KRW 12 million to the national bank account under the Defendant’s name, and KRW 10 million to the new bank account under the Defendant’s name.
【Judgment based on Service by Public Notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to have sufficiently anticipated that his bank account could be used for a criminal act even though the Defendant did not actively participate in telephone financial fraud (so-called “singing”). As such, since at least it was easy to commit a criminal act, the Plaintiff shall compensate for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to joint tort amounting to KRW 22 million.
B. The reasoning of the judgment reveals that the Defendant could have sufficiently predicted that the passbook Nos. 1 and 2 will be used for singing. Even if the Defendant violated the Defendant’s duty of care, the account under the Defendant’s name was merely a means used by the Plaintiff for disposal of property after deceiving the person in breach of the Plaintiff’s name, and thus, the account under the Defendant’s name was merely a means used by the Plaintiff for disposal of property.