(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.1.11. 선고 2018가단5102259 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 144,120,000 won with 5% interest per annum from January 28, 2018 to January 11, 2019, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 20% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 17,711,960 won with 5% interest per annum from January 28, 2018 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

On January 27, 2018, the Plaintiff heard from the Defendant that he/she would participate in the virtual currency disclosure called 'C' and make an investment, and sent 120 interest rates to the Defendant. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant used the interest rates received from the Plaintiff without investing in the said virtual currency disclosure.

According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by deception, since he committed a tort by deceiving 120 persons from the plaintiff.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Positive damage;

1) Property damage caused by a tort refers to the difference between the property disadvantage caused by an illegal harmful act, that is, the property condition that would have existed without the illegal act and the current property condition that caused the illegal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da33070, Oct. 28, 1997); the amount of such damage shall be calculated, in principle, at the time of the illegal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da26043, Oct. 28, 1997; 99Da38705, Apr. 10, 200; 200Da34426, Jan. 10, 200). Here, the term "the present" refers to "the time when the tort was committed" in the meaning of "the time when the tort was committed" means "the time when the tort was committed" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da4889, Apr. 29, 2009).

2) In the instant case, it is apparent that the difference between the property status that existed without the Defendant’s illegal act and the property status of the illegal act caused “120”. According to the evidence No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1 of this case, it can be recognized that there was a cause of 1,201,000 interest rates as of January 27, 2018, which was the time of the illegal act. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for the damages incurred by the active damages (1,201,00 won X 120) and the delay damages incurred therefrom.

3) The defendant's assertion that he would return 120 interest rates to the plaintiff against the above legal principles (the plaintiff did not agree that the defendant would return 120 interest rates to the plaintiff as compensation for damages) or that he would pay 120 interest rates to the plaintiff. The defendant's assertion that he would pay 120 interest rates converted from the value of interest rates at the time of the conclusion of the argument in this case cannot be accepted.

In addition, the defendant's assertion that a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim's care is not allowed as a matter of principle to reduce his or her responsibility on the ground of the victim's negligence. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of comparative negligence cannot

(b) consolation money;

Although the Plaintiff sought a solatium of KRW 30 million against the Defendant due to a tort, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has a irrecoverable mental damage solely with compensation for property damage. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for solatium is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 144,120,00 as damages and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from January 28, 2018, which is the date of the judgment that the Defendant’s dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation of performance of this case from January 28, 2018 to January 11, 2019, and the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.