beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B’s KRW 9,004,100 as well as 5% per annum from October 31, 2014 to December 16, 2014.
Reasons
1. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received a call from an unqualified person who introduced himself/herself as F, to “the head of KB National Bank Credit Finance Team (the head of the team in charge of 4.7%p loan”; (b) he/she received a loan from the Hyundai Card on the same day, and transferred KRW 9,004,100 to the Bank’s account in the name of Defendant B; (c) KRW 15,006,875 to the Bank’s account in the name of Defendant C; and (d) received a loan from R&I on the 27th day of the same month, and transferred KRW 3,005,816 to the new bank account in the name of Defendant D; and (e) KRW 3,002,90 to the Korea Exchange Bank’s account in the name of Defendant E with a loan from Defendant C, with a loan from Defendant D’s Green on the 30th day of the same month.
(hereinafter “instant Bophishing.” 【Ground for Recognition. 【In the absence of any dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.
2. The Defendants asserted as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount transferred to the account held in the name of the Defendants without any legal ground due to the instant Bophishing fraud, or incurred damages equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff by facilitating the instant Bophishing fraud by providing the means of access, such as the electronic card, etc., to the nominal holders, thereby facilitating the instant Bophishing fraud. As such, the Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, as the primary return of unjust enrichment, each of the transferred amount as compensation for losses incurred by the conjunctive tort, and
3. Judgment on deemed confessions as to the primary claims against Defendant B and C (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)
d. Claim against Defendant D and E
A. Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the account transfer amount by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as to the primary claim (request for return of unjust enrichment), the remitter shall be the remitter.