(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.20 2020가단5098124

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.20 2020가단5098124

손해배상(기)

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff received a telephone from a person in a false name who assumes the position of the prosecution, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the account in the name of C, and KRW 70 million to the account in the name of the Defendant, as the Plaintiff stated, “In order to verify whether there is an illegal fund because the passbook has been discovered, the Plaintiff transferred money to the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service.”

The defendant received the above KRW 70 million and transferred it to the account in the name of E, a corporation in the virtual currency transaction in D.

However, prior to the instant case, the Defendant had the power to participate in the licensing, and in this case, even if transferred in accordance with the direction after entering into the labor contract, it could have easily known that it was used for the licensing crime, and in light of the fact that the Defendant responded to this, the Defendant is an accomplice of the smoking crime or aids and abets the smoking crime by negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 70,000,000 and the delayed damages to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant was issued a disposition of non-prosecution regarding the instant case, by taking the message of the Defendant’s job offer and preparing a labor contract, and doing so on behalf of buying virtual currency according to the direction of the employer, and having received a disposition of non-prosecution.

Since the phrase that the nominal owner is required to carry out the purchase of virtual currency is only engaged in the purchase agency business after hearing the fact that the nominal owner is required, it was not possible to know or know the instant Bosing crime.

2. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem the Defendant as the Defendant’s criminal and accomplice in the instant Bosing and co-offenders, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. We examine whether the Defendant’s negligence aided and abetted the phishing crime.

1) Article 760(3) of the Civil Act regards an aiding and abetting a tort as a joint illegal offender.

참조조문

-민법 제760조 제3항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.20 2020가단5098124

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.01.06 2020고단2315

-울산지방법원 2021.01.21 2020나11339

-광주지방법원 2018.11.09 2018고단3605