Damages Specialist Attorney | Client Implicated in Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud, 25 Million Won Claim for Damages Entirely Dismissed

The damages specialist attorney submitted as evidence the client's economic situation, the loans, and the entire process of setting up the website.

The client was deceived by the fraud organization's representation that it would "guarantee profits," took out loans, and merely created the website and account, and had no 'foreseeability' that the account would be misused for telecommunications-based financial fraud.

The attorney emphasized that this was a key element showing the complete absence of intent or conspiracy.

Based on Supreme Court Judgments 2015Da53568 and 2013Da91597, the damages specialist attorney developed the following argument.

For liability for a joint tort to be recognized, • there must be aiding by negligence, • there must be a proximate causal relationship between that negligence and the occurrence of the loss, • foreseeability and the degree of contribution to the occurrence of the harm must also be comprehensively considered, and • liability must not be excessively expanded.

The attorney emphasized that there was no direct causal relationship between the client's conduct (setting up the account) and the occurrence of the victim's loss, and that there were no circumstances showing that the client had substantially contributed to defrauding the victim of money.

By submitting the police's notice of investigation results as evidence, the attorney emphasized that there was no basis to find that the client recognized or foresaw the voice phishing crime, and that the client was merely a victim who had been deceived without any intent to participate.

The attorney argued that the fact that even the criminal authorities acknowledged "the absence of both intent and negligence" was a decisive basis for proving the non-existence of liability for a tort under civil law.

The damages specialist attorney argued that the act of the client setting up the account, by itself, did not directly cause the victim's monetary loss.

In addition, the attorney argued for the severance of the proximate causal relationship on the grounds that • the fraud organization independently carried out the deceptive act, and • the victim could also have sufficiently verified the risk before transferring the funds to the account.

This case was a 'criminal-to-civil linked case' in which, after Daeryun first obtained the criminal non-referral decision, the client, based on that result, went on to entrust the civil damages case as well.

Daeryun's one-stop damages response system consists of the following stages.

-Damages Specialist Attorney
• Full analysis of the criminal record and shift to a civil strategy
• Construction of legal arguments based on Supreme Court precedents related to telecommunications-based financial fraud
• Proof of the absence of intent or negligence
• Securing arguments denying foreseeability and causal relationship

-Digital Forensics Center and Evidence Investigation Center
• Precise analysis of digital evidence such as account transaction records, messages, and communication logs

-Criminal Specialist Attorney
• Construction of rebuttal briefs and supporting evidence
• Establishment of litigation strategy and conduct of pleadings

Ultimately, the progression from criminal non-referral → civil success (the claim dismissed in its entirety) was an outcome made possible by Daeryun's integrated criminal and civil response system.

If you need legal assistance with a related case, please proceed with a 🔗Legal Consultation Reservation right away.