Owner Who Deposited Money into Account Used for Voice Phishing... Court Rules "Financial Supervisory Service Must Return Balance"

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The owner of a bank account used in a voice phishing crime unknowingly deposited money into it and, after being denied a refund by the financial authorities, filed an appeal lawsuit and won in the first trial.

According to the court on the 27th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 5 (Presiding Judge Kim Sun-yeol) recently ruled in favor of plaintiff A in the first trial of the cancellation lawsuit against the Financial Supervisory Service's refusal to refund extinguished claims.

Earlier, in 2020, A was deceived by a text message related to a low-income citizen living fund loan sent by a voice phishing scammer impersonating a commercial bank, and disclosed personal information such as account number, password, and resident registration number. A's account was used in the crime, and about 30 million KRW from other victims was deposited. A also transferred about 25 million KRW as a real estate sales contract deposit to this account.

Afterwards, A recognized the problem and applied to the bank for payment suspension and damage relief. However, the voice phishing scammer had already withdrawn A's and the victims' money, and the account balance at the time of payment suspension was only 20.09 million KRW.

The Financial Supervisory Service stated, "Since the victim's deposited money and A's funds were mixed and cannot be proven with objective evidence," the balance was refunded to the victim, not A.

The first trial ruled in favor of A, stating that "the Financial Supervisory Service's disposition is illegal and must be canceled." This case was judged not to fall under the Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act's clause that "if the account owner knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that the account was used for telecommunication financial fraud."

The court said, "Although the scammers presented a fabricated profile claiming to be bank employees, the plaintiff did not verify whether they were actual employees and negligently provided personal information and check cards," but added, "it is insufficient to recognize this as gross negligence close to intentional wrongdoing." It also added, "It is difficult to exclude the possibility that A is also a victim."

The Financial Supervisory Service has appealed against this ruling.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.