beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,500,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from June 30, 2015 to March 30, 2016, respectively.
Reasons
1. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) received a telephone from an unqualified person’s name to “a deposit in order to trace bank account flow because the Plaintiff’s name was stolen; and (b) accordingly, remitted KRW 35,00,000 to the account in the name of the Defendant (C).
Since then, the plaintiff reported this damage to the police.
[Grounds for Recognition]
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon
A. The plaintiff's assertion is jointly with the so-called telephone financial fraud group, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim as a tortfeasor.
B. The judgment of the defendant does not clearly dispute the plaintiff's assertion because the defendant did not appear on the date of pleading even after being served with lawful service and did not submit a written reply. Thus, it is deemed that the defendant led to confession
However, the comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act is intended to take into account the obligee’s equivalent principle as to the occurrence of damages, in a case where the obligee fails to fulfill his/her duty required under the good faith principle, and the obligee’s equivalent principle as to the occurrence of damages is to take into account. Thus, even though the principle of equity, if the damage was caused or expanded due to such failure, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the victim. If the victim is found to have been negligent, the court shall take into account the liability for damages and its amount in determining the amount thereof.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da30113 Decided October 25, 1996, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff is relatively large without hearing the words of the person who was unable to receive the name, even though the telephone financial fraud group’s fraud was well known to the public, and thus, taking account of the aforementioned legal principles.