beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to KRW 4,215,00 and KRW 2,995,00 among them, Defendant B shall be from November 3, 2014 to July 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Part of the claim against the defendant B
A. On November 3, 2014, 200 won, 5,990,000 won withdrawn out of the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number D) in the Defendant’s name, 7,210,000 won, which was transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number D) on November 3, 2014, shall be damages, and 1,220,000 won remaining in the said deposit account at present, shall be charged to Defendant B for unjust enrichment.
(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. The part of the claim against the defendant C
A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the submission of the submission order to the post office Sung-dong Seoul, Sung-dong, Seoul, for the information on financial transactions.
1) On November 3, 2014, Defendant C, upon the request of a person under whose name the name was unknown, informed him of his bank account number (Account Number E) and the password of the passbook necessary for cash withdrawal. 2) On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff received a request on November 3, 2014 from a person under whose name the staff member of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office was misrepresented to confirm that it is necessary to be deferred to F’s fraudulent case, and then visited G Internet site as ordered, and then sent KRW 6,646,200 from the above bank account of Defendant C to the above post office account of Defendant C.
On November 3, 2014, from November 15:32, 2014 to November 15:55, 2014, Defendant C withdrawn KRW 5,995,400 on nine occasions, using the password of passbook known by Defendant C.
B. In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, one of the persons who jointly inflict damages on another, the person who committed the act does not need joint perception as well as the conspiracy among the actors, but the act is objectively related to the collaborative act.