logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가단17794
부당이득금반환 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Around October 18, 2011, the Plaintiff, who misrepresented to be an investigator of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, provided the Plaintiff’s personal information by telephone and by deceiving the card company name and the account number, and then deposited the Plaintiff’s bank account in the name of the card company with the Plaintiff’s personal information, and then transferred KRW 6 million to Defendant B, C, and D’s Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 4.8 million to Defendant E’s Nonghyup Bank account (hereinafter “instant Bophish”).

Facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by the statements in Gap evidence 1 and 2.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants obtained profits from the amount equivalent to the deposit claim deposited in the account under the name of the Defendants without any legal ground and thereby inflicted damage on the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff should return the amount equivalent to the above deposit claim to the Plaintiff. 2) When the remitter transferred the account to the account of the payee, regardless of whether there is a legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank as the cause of the account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank, a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of the account transfer is established between the payee and the receiving bank. The payee acquired the receiving bank’s deposit claim corresponding to the above amount. In this case, even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, if the payee acquired the deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer due to the account transfer, the remitter has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the payee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007).

arrow