Decisions

All

TITLE	Seoul Central District Court 2021GaDan5243198 Decided April 11, 2023: Appeal 【Confirmation of Non-Existence of Obligations】 [full Text]
Summary
【Main Issues and Holdings】 In the case where: Party A believed that a text message sent by an unknown person was sent by their son, and Party A sent a photo of their driver’s license and their bank account number and password with Bank B as instructed by the unknown party and Party A installed a mobile phone remote control program by clicking on the URL address sent by the unknown person, and the unknown person used the personal information from Party A and the mobile phone remote control program to renew the joint certificate of the Bank B security service mobile OTP and the Korea Financial Telecommunications and Clearings Institute (yessignCA) joint certificates in the name of Party A, after which an insurance policy loan was applied for and obtained through a non-face-to-face electronic financial method with Insurance Company C that entered into an insurance contract with Party A, Party A alleged that the above insurance policy loan agreement is invalid as it does not fall under Article 7(2)(ii) of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions, and so sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation towards Company C, it is held that, although it is reasonable to deem that the above insurance policy loan agreement falls under Article 7(2)(ii) so the resulting legal effect is validly attributed to Party A, the policy holder, in light of the circumstances, Company C is liable for damages suffered by Party A due to the insurance policy loan because Company C did not properly perform the identification procedures and efforts to prevent damage caused by telecommunications financial fraud as prescribed by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the “Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Loss,” but considering Party A’s negligence, etc., it is reasonable to limit the liability to 50% of the loan amount, so, Party A’s claims are reasonable within this scope.

TITLE

Seoul Central District Court 2021GaDan5243198 Decided April 11, 2023: Appeal 【Confirmation of Non-Existence of Obligations】 [full Text]

Summary

【Main Issues and Holdings】 In the case where: Party A believed that a text message sent by an unknown person was sent by their son, and Party A sent a photo of their driver’s license and their bank account number and password with Bank B as instructed by the unknown party and Party A installed a mobile phone remote control program by clicking on the URL address sent by the unknown person, and the unknown person used the personal information from Party A and the mobile phone remote control program to renew the joint certificate of the Bank B security service mobile OTP and the Korea Financial Telecommunications and Clearings Institute (yessignCA) joint certificates in the name of Party A, after which an insurance policy loan was applied for and obtained through a non-face-to-face electronic financial method with Insurance Company C that entered into an insurance contract with Party A, Party A alleged that the above insurance policy loan agreement is invalid as it does not fall under Article 7(2)(ii) of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions, and so sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation towards Company C, it is held that, although it is reasonable to deem that the above insurance policy loan agreement falls under Article 7(2)(ii) so the resulting legal effect is validly attributed to Party A, the policy holder, in light of the circumstances, Company C is liable for damages suffered by Party A due to the insurance policy loan because Company C did not properly perform the identification procedures and efforts to prevent damage caused by telecommunications financial fraud as prescribed by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the “Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Loss,” but considering Party A’s negligence, etc., it is reasonable to limit the liability to 50% of the loan amount, so, Party A’s claims are reasonable within this scope.

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2022Da289990 Decided April 13, 2023 【Lawsuit for Objection to Trial Determining Investigation of Claims】
Next	Daegu District Court 2022Noh3129 Decided March 30, 2023: Appeal 【Violation of Cultural Heritage Protection Act】

list