beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) KRW 2,870,000, as well as 5% per annum from July 3, 2014 to November 13, 2014; and
Reasons
1. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff: “Around June 24, 2014, it is necessary to adjust the debt to receive KRW 40 million from a person who has no personal name (i.e., I’s I’s proxy loan).” The Plaintiff received a telephone call from “a transfer of money to an account designated as a person who has to repay the amount of the existing loan.” The Plaintiff sent KRW 23,290,000 in total to the account in the name of the Defendants when the said person was notified.”
Transfer of the account number of a temporary account holder on June 24, 2014, KRW 2,870,000, KRW 3,680,000 in the financial investment K1,680,00 in the new financial investment account C on July 3, 2014, 30 June 30, 2014, E Hyundai Securities M 2,120,000 won on July 3, 2014, KRW 4,840,000 in the F Samsung Securities N4,840,000 on July 3, 3, 2014, KRW 5,880,00 in the G Samsung SecuritiesO on July 3, 2014, KRW 2,90,00 in the H&D 2,90,00 in the Korea Investment Securities P/D on June 27, 2014 / [Grounds] The purport of each of subparagraph 1 through 21-21-21 of the evidence
2. The Defendants, the nominal owner of the Plaintiff’s bank account, the victim of the so-called Bophishing crime, who was the nominal owner of the account transferred the money from the Plaintiff’s bank account, have obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the money deposited in each account, or incurred damages to the Plaintiff by facilitating the Plaintiff’s Bophishing crime by providing the passbook, card, password, etc. to the name-holder of the said account. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money transferred as compensation for losses incurred by the conjunctive tort, as the return of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.
3. Judgment on deemed confessions as to the primary claims against Defendant B, C, D, E, and F (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)
4. Claim against Defendant G and H
A. Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship that causes account transfer between a remitter and an addressee as to a claim for return of unjust enrichment, the account transfer shall be deemed to have been made.