계좌명의인에 대한 보이스피싱 피해자의 부당이득반환 청구

Voice phishing crimes have been increasing significantly recently, but there are many cases where victims are unable to receive compensation for their losses from the perpetrators. Accordingly, there are many cases where victims of voice phishing file claims for return of unjust enrichment against the account holder. In this case, for unjust enrichment to be established, the ‘benefit’ and ‘defect in legal cause’ are at issue. If the defrauded money is transferred to an account, the ownership of the money is recognized by the possessor, so it is in line with the principle of fairness to recognize the benefit regardless of whether the account holder had any actual profit. If the account holder is a person enriched in good faith, only the amount that he still possesses of such benefits can be returned, and thus the account holder can be protected. According to civil act, there is no need for a subjective requirement on the part of the person enriched to establish unjust enrichment. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legitimate cause only in cases where the person enriched has bad faith or gross negligence. If the account holder knows that the money was defrauded, it is fair to return the embezzled money to the victim of voice phishing even if there is a claim against the defrauder. In such cases, it is desirable to protect the victim by analogically applying the bona fide acquisition regulation. If the person enriched is grossly negligent, it is in line with the principle of fairness to return the amount received plus interest, even if it was done in good faith.