logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.26 2017가단5109512
구상금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 42,00,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from March 31, 201 to December 13, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E bank”) on February 13, 201, between February 13, 2010 and February 13, 201, with a coverage period: (a) the policyholder and the insured E Bank; (b) the limit of compensation KRW 2 billion per claim; and (c) the insured’s legal liability of the financial institution or electronic financial business entity following the enforcement of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. (1) During the period from June 30, 2010 to July 6, 2010, pursuant to the F’s E bank deposit account hacking Act under the F’s account hacking Act, the following accounts are opened in the name of the Defendants (hereinafter “instant accounts”).

) An accident occurred in which a deposit is transferred to another bank. The name transfer amount (won) 1 B Bank H 12,000,000,000 withdrawals J 12,000,000 from 12,000 and 2 C KK 12,000,000 of the MK Bank N42,000,000 3DK 12,000,000 6,000,000 (ex) 12,000,000,0000 (Suspension of Payment) from M Bank P Bank P 12,000,000 6,000,0000 (in case of payment suspension) 6,000,0000 (in case of 150,000,0000)

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages amounting to KRW 150,000,000,000 for the total amount transferred as above to the E Bank. On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,000,000 as compensation for damages arising from the instant insurance contract, the E Bank, the insured, in accordance with the insurance contract of this case.

As a result of a criminal case against the Defendants, on October 27, 2010, the Defendants were subject to a non-prosecution disposition of suspension of indictment on the grounds that the Defendants transferred the passbook and cash card of the instant account to a person who borrowed his name in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, despite being aware of the suspected fact, on the grounds that they were transferred the passbook, etc. on the grounds that they reported the advertisement of “issuance of a credit bad credit card” kept in the subway station,

(C) The District Prosecutors' Office, 2010, No. 60775.

arrow