The money transferred was ‘phishing damage money’… Court: “There is no liability for unjust enrichment or damages”

The money sent turned out to be voice phishing damage... ‘Account suspension’ in progress
Court: “It is difficult to hold the buyer responsible for verifying his/her identity and involvement in a crime”

The court ruled that if there are no special circumstances in the process of receiving money, the creditor is not liable for unjust enrichment or compensation for damages.

According to the legal community on the 1st, A, a woman in her 60s, sold foreign currency twice on a used trading platform in 2023 and 2024 and received about 18 million won. Soon after, Mr. A received a notice from the bank that account payment was suspended and bond extinction procedures were in progress. This is because the money Mr. A received through the transaction was voice phishing damage.

Mr. A claimed that he only received fair compensation through the transaction and did not participate in the crime, and that he also suffered damages when the bond extinguishment process began. Meanwhile, on the 17th of last month, a lawsuit was filed against two people, including Mr. B, to confirm the absence of debt.

Two people, including Mr. B, refuted that Mr. A was also responsible. They emphasized that Mr. A was either intentional or grossly negligent in his illegal activities, saying, “While selling a large amount of foreign currency, he did not closely examine the personal information of the trader and remitter.”

The Seoul Western District Court, which heard the case, ruled in favor of Mr. A, saying, “It is difficult to say that there is a liability for return of unjust enrichment and compensation for damages to the defendants.”

The court ruled, “It is difficult to say that there were suspicious circumstances enough to create an obligation for the plaintiff to confirm the identity of the foreign currency purchaser, and the plaintiff cannot be held at fault for not knowing whether the money received was money related to a crime.”

In relation to this, attorney Park Jeong-gyu of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, “The unjust enrichment system considers the creditor’s acquisition to have a legal cause if there are no special circumstances such as malice or gross negligence in the process of receiving money.” He added, “We were able to obtain a favorable ruling by emphasizing that he did not participate in the crime based on the fact that he did not separately check the other party’s personal information or whether the name of the depositor matched in the used transaction environment.”

Reporter Kim Mi-ji (unknown@kyeonggi.com)

[View full article]
The money received was ‘phishing damage’… Court: “There is no liability for unjust enrichment or damages” (Shortcut)