beta
Text
1. Terms and conditions indicated in KRW 30,000,000, deposited on July 25, 2018, opened with the Plaintiff as deposit holders.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, a company operating the “G” exchange, opened a deposit account (Account Number: D; hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Plaintiff for the transaction of encryption currency with C Bank, and allowed registered members of the said Exchange to use the instant account when trading encryption.
B. E is a person who has joined the said exchange as a member and obtained the “F” unique code from the Plaintiff.
C. At around 11:00 on July 24, 2018, the Defendant transferred KRW 30,000 to the post office account (I) in the name of E designated by the deceased, who was designated on July 25, 2018.
On July 25, 2018, the Plaintiff received transfer of KRW 30,000,00 (hereinafter “the instant remittance amount”) with a statement of “EF” including the E’s unique code to the instant account on July 16, 2018, and the said money was converted into the won point, and used as the acquisition price of encryption.
E. After that, the Defendant’s application for damage to telecommunications-based financial fraud was issued the suspension of payment to the instant account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 14 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff alleged to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant bears the burden of proving and proving the elements of the legal relationship.
(Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). In this case, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant has any claim regarding the remittance amount of this case remitted to the account of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant does not exist.
Although the defendant submitted reference materials to the effect that he suffered damage from fraud, the existence of a specific claim against the plaintiff is clearly asserted and proved.