2015 Ghana 224871 Claims for damages

1. ○○

2. Jink ○

Plaintiffs’ Address Seoul Gwanak-gu

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Choi Jae-ho

OOOO

Incheon Southern Dong-gu

Law Firm Man New, Attorney Park Man-chul

Attorney Lee Jae-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

April 7, 2016

May 12, 2016

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○ amounting to KRW 53,208, KRW 918, KRW 91, KRW 867, and KRW 358, and each of them, 20% per annum from July 9, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 10 and Eul evidence 1 (including the branch numbers if there is a lot number) without dispute between the parties, or by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

(a) A party;

The plaintiffs are married, and the defendant is a person who was de facto in a de facto marital relationship with the non-party of this case, who is the plaintiffs.

B. Illegal acts, etc. committed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Lee ○○

1) On February 20, 2013, the Defendant, at the residence of the Plaintiffs located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City around February 20, 2013, and from June 26, 2012, to Plaintiff ○○, the father of B/L, who had been living together with the family relationship, could receive a discount of at least 10% when paying the insurance money with the bar card. As such, the Defendant would pay the examination money by deeming the bar card as the bar card at the face of a city. The Defendant, as indicated in the attached Table I, received the bar card from Plaintiff ○○ and withdrawn the cash service 600,000 won from that time to June 26, 2013, received the cash service equivalent to KRW 19,700,000 from the Plaintiff ○○, or received the said cash service under the name of Plaintiff ○○ account or received the said money from the Defendant to the said account.

2) Around February 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) accessed the Plaintiff’s personal information of ○○○○○○ by using the details of the Plaintiff’s insurance coverage and Internet banking information to manage the financial instruments; (b) applied for a loan of KRW 9,910,00 in the name of ○○○○○○○○; and (c) paid KRW 9,910,00 in the name of ○○○○○○ Department managed by the Defendant from e-mail; and (d) paid KRW 9,910,00 in the name of e-mail, the Defendant paid KRW 20,610,00 in the name of e-mail in the name of ○○○○ Group managed by the Defendant; and (b) as in the attached Table II, the Defendant applied for a loan to ○○○○○ by the same method from February 27, 2013; and (c) did not obtain the total amount of KRW 00,000,000.

3) On September 2012, the Defendant: (a) sought to terminate the Plaintiffs’ Hyundai Card as it does not need to terminate the Plaintiffs’ residential area; (b) obtained each one of the Hyundai Card from the Plaintiffs by deceiving the Plaintiffs to make a contract by termination on behalf of the Defendant; and (c) without cancelling the Hyundai Card, between September 14, 2012 and June 14, 2013, the Defendant acquired the economic benefits equivalent to the same amount by using the Plaintiff’s Hyundai Card in total amount of KRW 9,556,590 from September 14, 2012, without cancelling the Hyundai Card.

4) From around December 2, 2012 to January 2013, the Defendant purchased goods of the amount equivalent to KRW 27,173,697 from the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○’s NAC and acquired the same interest by purchasing goods of the amount equivalent to KRW 27,173,697 among them by purchasing the agricultural products of KRW 37,00,000 from December 30, 2012 to July 9, 2013.

5) On January 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) obtained a 10% discount when paying the insurance premium with a credit card from the Plaintiff Lee ○○○; (b) obtained a slot card from the Plaintiff Lee ○○○; and (c) obtained a 1,842, 190 won in total from January 13, 2013 to June 26, 2013 by using the said Nonghyup card; and (d) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

6) On December 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) intended to assist the Plaintiffs in financial transactions, such as the remittance of Smarket tobacco payments; (b) required documents from the bank; and (c) obtained an authorized certificate by allowing the Plaintiffs to prepare documents necessary for Internet banking and the issuance of an authorized certificate with the Plaintiffs, and then, (d) obtained an authorized certificate by allowing the Nong Bank to obtain an authorized certificate by using the Internet banking; and (b) on December 7, 2012, the Defendant terminated the Agricultural Cooperative Life Insurance Contract with ○○○○, supra, and received KRW 13,785,180, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above amount.

C. Illegal acts, etc. committed by the Defendant against Plaintiff Jin-○○

1) The Defendant applied for a loan of KRW 12,170,00 in the name of Plaintiff Jinjin-○’s personal information, and applied for a loan of KRW 12,170,00 in the name of Plaintiff Jinjin-○’s name, and received KRW 9,910,00 in the name of the loan under the name of Plaintiff Jinjin-○○○’s high-priced management from LIG damage insurance, and received KRW 9,910,00 in the name of the loan from KRW 5,00 on November 13, 2012, and filed a claim for a loan of KRW 5,00 with the Plaintiff Jin-○, who was the mother of this case living together, to manage the financial products with the Plaintiff Jin-○, who was the mother of this case, on April 30, 2013. The Defendant applied for a loan of KRW 5,000 in the name of Plaintiff Jinjin-○, and applied for a loan of KRW 45,00.

2) On September 2012, the Defendant: (a) sought to terminate the Plaintiffs’ Hyundai Card as it does not need to terminate the Plaintiffs’ residential area; (b) by deceiving the Plaintiffs to take one copy of the Hyundai Card on behalf of the Defendant; and (c) without cancelling the Hyundai Card from November 1, 2012 to June 16, 2013, the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 6,281, 423, by using the Plaintiff’s Hyundai Card from November 1, 2012 to June 16, 2013.

3) From around December 2, 2012 to January 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded that it is difficult to make payment by credit card in seeking studio to live together with the instant B/L; and (b) received one copy of the No.C.C. card from the Plaintiffs from January 9, 2013 to June 6, 2013; and (c) purchased goods worth KRW 1,956,770 in total using the Plaintiff’s J.C. card and acquired profits equivalent to the same amount.

4) On November 2012, the Defendant prepared necessary documents with the bank to assist the Plaintiffs in conducting financial transactions, such as the remittance of Schlage tobacco prices. For this purpose, the Defendant issued an authorized certificate by requiring the Plaintiffs to do so with the Internet banking and the issuing of authorized certificates, using the Internet banking, following the termination of the contract with the Plaintiffs on November 1, 2012, KRW 2,416, 285, KRW 60, KRW 300, KRW 600, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 285, KRW 60, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 380, KRW 196, KRW 285, KRW 60, KRW 96, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 380, KRW 280, KRW 165, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 15, around December 13, 2012.

D. The defendant's partial repayment

On March 25, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 70,000,00 as part of the damages compensation to the Plaintiffs.

2. Determination

(a) According to the above facts, the amount that the defendant has to pay to the plaintiffs 0 - 2, 67, 657 for the plaintiff ○○ , 00 + 20, 610, 56, 50 + 27, 173, 697 + 13, 742, 785, 186, 186, 180 + 60 won for the defendant's - 64, 67, 60, 67, 600 + 96, 60, 67, 190, 785, 180.

B. Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○ KRW 53,208, 918, Plaintiff Jin-○○ KRW 91, 867, and 358, and each of them, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 9, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum under the same Act from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Oduk-sik