Consultation with an Ilsan Attorney | Sued in a Voice Phishing Civil Lawsuit, but Defended Through Dismissal of the Claim

As a freelancer, the client faced a situation in which, after the projects he had been handling ended, he had no income and found it difficult to pay his credit card bills.

Then, he came across a credit card payment-substitution company, OO, on social media, and, thinking it was simply something like a moneylending business, he applied for a consultation.

According to OO's explanation, if they prepaid the client's credit card bill, the client would simply need to purchase goods or gift certificates in that amount from a designated company.

The client made the payment as instructed by OO.

A few days later, however, the client received a notice that his account had been used in a voice phishing crime and that his card would be suspended.

Another voice phishing victim (the plaintiff), following the demand of an unidentified person, deposited approximately 7.5 million won into the virtual account that the client had provided to OO, and accordingly filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the client.

Moreover, the plaintiff claimed, through the voice phishing civil lawsuit, damages for a tort as well, asserting that the client had facilitated the criminal's offense by handing over the right to dispose of the account to the voice phishing criminal.

As in the case above, there are instances in which a person is deceived by a voice phishing criminal organization and the victim's funds are deposited into that person's account. Such an offense is referred to as so-called 'three-party fraud.'

The relevant statutes and precedents are explained below.

Where, despite the absence of any legal relationship constituting the cause of the account transfer between the remitter and the recipient, the recipient acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the transferred amount by means of the account transfer, the remitter holds a right against the recipient to claim the return of unjust enrichment in the amount equivalent to that sum.

- See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Decided November 29, 2007, among others

Because the system of unjust enrichment, where a beneficiary's pecuniary gain lacks any legal cause, imposes upon the beneficiary an obligation to return it on the basis of the principles of fairness and justice, no obligation to return can be imposed if no gain has in substance accrued to the beneficiary.

- See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Decided September 8, 2011, among others

In order to use OO's credit card payment-substitution service, the client purchased goods corresponding to the substituted payment from a company designated by OO, and a debt in that amount was incurred.

The attorney therefore argued that the client had not obtained any pecuniary gain.

The client did not know the plaintiff, and he was entirely unaware that money from the plaintiff's account had been deposited into the virtual account in the client's name and used to prepay the credit card bill.

The attorney therefore argued that the client had neither directly deceived the plaintiff nor provided the account to OO for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary gain.

If you have been sued in a claim for the return of unjust enrichment, it is necessary to examine whether the unjust enrichment claimed by the other party is justified and whether it actually constitutes unjust enrichment.

The claim can then be dismissed by clearly presenting evidence that it is not unjust enrichment. In this process, it is advantageous to proceed together with the legal counsel of a specialized attorney.

If you have been sued in a voice phishing civil lawsuit, please seek a 🔗damages-specialist attorney, where attorneys with extensive experience in handling related cases provide dedicated assistance for the rights and interests of their clients, by contacting Daeryun Law Firm for a 🔗legal consultation.