beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B and D with respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 5,600 and each of the said amounts, Defendant B and Defendant D with respect to October 8, 2014.
Reasons
1. The facts under the basis of the facts are either in dispute between the parties or acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1 to 28.
A. On June 17, 2014, on the part of the Plaintiff, the person under whose name the loan was made known to the Plaintiff, such as the account number, password of the head of the Tong, and the back of resident registration number.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was informed of the above information to the person under the name of the Plaintiff, and the person under the name of the Plaintiff received a loan from the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff, and then transferred the total amount of KRW 23,540,000 to each financial account under the name of the Defendants, such as the details of the attached account transfer.
C. As above, money transferred to the financial account under the Defendants’ name was deposited most immediately, and KRW 200, KRW 3500, KRW 1900, and KRW 7,600 were left to the chip securities account in Defendant B’s chip securities account, KRW 5,600, and KRW 5,600 were left to the chip securities account in Defendant C’s chip.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the first place, the Defendants were obligated to return the money borrowed under the Plaintiff’s name to the financial account in the name of the Defendants by remitting the money to the financial account in the name of the Defendants, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the above remitted amount without any legal cause. 2) In the second place, the Plaintiff was subject to telephone financial fraud from the person who was unaware of the name, and the Defendants were able to use the bank account, check card, cash card, etc. with due care, despite the possibility of being used for the crime, and were transferred to the person who was unaware of the name, and notified of the password, so the Defendants
Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor pursuant to Article 760 of the Civil Act.
3. Determination
A. On the assertion of unjust enrichment, the remitter is the remitter.