logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2014노2346
사기
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants sold the solution to the victims, and only supported by the mobile phone call fee of 4 million points (non-regular telephone call fee).

At the time, the Defendants had sufficiently explained the above contents of the contract to the victims, and in fact, provided mobile phone call fees to the victims through the e-mail information and communications company, a specific communications business operator, etc. (hereinafter “non-information and communications”).

Therefore, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be said that the Defendants enticed the victims and acquired money from the victims by deceiving them by providing them with free call rights, etc. equivalent to the amount of the settlement, and by establishing them free of charge, if the Defendants paid mobile phone charges to the victims in advance.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud of the relevant legal doctrine refers to any affirmative and passive act that causes an error to a person, which is an active and passive act that has a good faith and good faith to observe each other in the transactional relationship.

In general, a mere exaggeration in advertising advertisement of goods is not sufficient in the context of deception as long as it can be accepted in light of the general commercial practice and good faith principle. However, in a case where the specific facts about important matters are falsely notified in a manner to the extent of being criticized in light of the transaction's duty of good faith and good faith, it constitutes deception of fraud beyond the limit of exaggerated advertisement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do1561 delivered on September 9, 1997). On the other hand, deception by passive act refers to a person subject to duty of disclosure, who is aware that he/she was involved in a certain fact and did not notify the other party thereof. In other words, general transactions are made.

arrow