logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.07.13 2017나4298
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as C’s mother, lent a passbook (Account Number: post office D; hereinafter “instant passbook”) in the name of the Defendant to enable C to use.

B. On May 8, 2014, C, which was known to the Plaintiff around May 201, went through as if he was or would proceed with the solar business and the underwriting of the gambling site. In mind, C received money from the Plaintiff on a loan for the said business operation, etc., and received money from the Plaintiff, and decided on May 2014, 201, the Plaintiff was issued the passbook from the Plaintiff as the head of the instant Tong on May 8, 2014, stating that “The amount of investment is short of money in carrying out the heating business in the name of E, and the amount of investment was borrowed.”

In addition, around March 2015, C made a false statement to the Plaintiff stating that “The amount of money lent to take over the gambling site is to be repaid in one month.” It received KRW 1,500,000 from the Plaintiff on March 10, 2015, and KRW 7,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff as the passbook.

C. C means August 30, 2016.

It was sentenced to two years of imprisonment due to fraud (Seoul Central District Court 2015Da7758, 7879, 7879 (Joint)), and the above judgment was finalized on September 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant transferred the instant passbook to C in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act so that it could be used for committing the crime of fraud, and that it took part in or aided and abetting the commission of the above fraud by taking over KRW 10,580,00 in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant’s husband F, the Defendant’s husband F, and the restaurant operated by the Defendant and F through the instant passbook account, etc., and thus, he

Even if the Defendant was to use the passbook in committing the crime of fraud.

arrow