(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.22 2015나2049987

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.22 2015나2049987

예금반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is rewritten or added as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A new or additional part of the judgment of the first instance; and

A. From the fifth side of the judgment of the first instance court, the following is added: “In short, it would be an empirical rule to prevent additional withdrawals by asking the Defendant bank for the liability of the bank or by changing the password, even if the Plaintiff knew of an improper decrease in KRW 3 to 40,000,00,000.”

B. Following the lower part of the fifth judgment of the first instance, the phrase “the facts” stated “B did not obtain the Plaintiff’s consent after the issuance of the physical card” by the police on September 2, 2014 (Evidence A9).

C. The first instance court's decision "3. Preliminary set-off defenses by the Defendant (Nos. 3 to 15)" are followed as follows.

3. As to the Defendant’s preliminary set-off, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff applied for text notice service in B’s phone number other than his phone number at the time of opening the instant deposit account, and that, on December 31, 2013, the Defendant was liable for not notifying the Defendant bank of the unauthorized withdrawal of the deposit without permission due to failure to notify the Defendant bank of the unauthorized withdrawal. As such, the Defendant’s conjunctive set-off by B after December 31, 2013 (i.e., the purchase amount of KRW 66,019,496 (=the purchase amount of KRW 42,470,310,000 in cash) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s purchase amount of KRW 23,549,186 (the purchase amount of the deposited cash amount of KRW 42,549,186) against the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Plaintiff.

The fact finding in the above facts, evidence No. 9, and fact finding to the head of Busan Bank BPR support department.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.05.15 2015나4346

-서울고등법원 2015.05.01 2014나23005

-서울고등법원 2015.07.10 2014나50922

-서울고등법원 2015.11.27 2015나2020986

-서울고등법원 2016.09.02 2015나2045312