2023-04-23 23:00:21
Getty Image Bank
A court judged that if a financial institution gave a loan to a person whose name was stolen because it did not properly fulfill its identity verification duty, it might not be demanded to repay the loan. It is the second trial court judgment of one of the victims of the charter loan fraud case who was unexpectedly requested to repay the loan even though he may have applied for a loan in his name, and it is noteworthy whether it will affect other cases. The 34-3 Civil Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Kwon Hyeok-joong) filed a lawsuit once morest Mr. A (33), who owed 200 million won in lease money due to identity theft from a loan solicitor who signed a contract with ORIX Capital Korea (ORIX), a financial company, to return the loan paid by ORIX. announced on the 24th that it overturned the first trial and ruled once morest the plaintiff. The judge said, “Financial institutions must directly check the customer’s identity and important matters in the loan contract before executing the leasehold deposit loan, but ORIX calls the phone number received from the loan offeror to make formal confirmations such as ‘yes’ and ‘no’. It was judged that he had not properly fulfilled the duty of care as a financial institution to be observed when using a loan offeror and the duty of identity verification under the Financial Real Name Act. A loan offeror refers to a loan counselor and a loan recruitment corporation that concludes a loan recruitment consignment contract with a financial company and performs tasks consigned by the financial company, such as loan application counseling, application receipt and delivery, etc. Financial companies use them to greatly expand their business networks. The Financial Services Commission stipulates that financial companies thoroughly conduct prior training, management, and supervision of loan solicitors to prevent excessive or unsound loans from occurring, and strictly enforce identity verification procedures when signing loan agreements (Exemplary Standards for Loan Solicitors).
■“You can buy an apartment following the jeonse ends” Temptation
“All I might think of was that my life was ruined. I lost my house, my money, my job, my girlfriend, my health because of a loan I never took.” Mr. A, who had a debt of nearly 300 million won in his early 30s, sighed on the phone with . He blamed himself for providing personal information to a group of loan recruiters in 2019. “Thinking regarding it now, it’s a stupid move, but since I was a newcomer to society, I was ignorant of information, so I passed on the idea that it would be a huge benefit.” Mr. A has already spent 20 million won in litigation costs and interest on the loan filed by Orix. Mr. A, who started his own business following graduating from college, met a loan recruiter through a high school classmate. The loan recruiter, who introduced himself as an employee of a financial company, said that he would pay all the interest on the 220 million won deposit. ‘Currently unsold, but in order to resolve this, we have entered into a partnership with a construction company. When the global contract ends, the apartment can be purchased at 70% of the market price at the time of the global contract expiry date. Their request was to give us 10% of the 30% profit. Mr. A, who needed a house and office space, believed the words of the loan offerer and handed over his stamp, ID card, and bankbook to sign a global contract with an apartment in Gyeonggi-do. The loan recruiter borrowed the money from the insurance company in the name of Mr. A. It was a normal loan so far. The problem is that it was not ‘one case’ that the loan recruiter received a charter loan. A week later, they received another loan of regarding 200 million won from Orix under the name of Mr. A. Loan documents such as the charter contract, the lessor’s name confirmation, and the charter loan agreement were all forged. Orix called the mobile phone written on the forged loan documents and deposited regarding 200 million won into an account in the name of Mr. A following going through a formal identity verification process. They stole the money right away. Mr. A did not know this fact. They stole 3.4 billion won from Orix 16 times from October 2018 to August 2019 and 11.9 billion won from Shinhan Capital 57 times from October 2019 to April 2020 using the same method. One group of loan collectors were charged with fraud and forgery of private documents and received 2-3 years in prison.
2nd trial overturning ruling in favor of financial institution
Orix and Shinhan Capital filed a civil lawsuit once morest the victims whose names were stolen. He also filed a complaint, saying that he was suspected of being an accomplice with a gang of loan collectors. As a result of the investigation, it was found that the victims were not suspected of conspiring with the loan offerer. Civil litigation was a problem. Most of the victims were unable to cope with the lawsuit due to financial difficulties, and unknowingly took hundreds of millions of won in loans in their names. Only some victims have responded by hiring a lawyer. However, the court ordered the victim to repay 100% of the loan (regarding 200 million won) (Orix case). Even when the financial company acknowledged responsibility, the court ruled that the victim should also pay back 15% (30 million won), saying that they were also responsible. (Shinhan Capital) Incident) Mr. A also lost in the first trial. The judge ruled that Mr. A must repay both the principal and interest of the loan, saying, “Even if the borrower had a cell phone in the name of Mr. did. However, the second trial reversed this. The judge said, “Mr. A paid a lump sum for the rental deposit and moved in. A week following moving in, an application for a rental deposit loan was received, and this method is not only very unusual, but it is highly likely to be abused for illegal and unfair loans.” I might,” he judged. Attorney Lim Ja-woon, who represented regarding 30 victims of the loan solicitor, said, “It is the first time that the court has held Orix 100% responsible in a lawsuit for the return of loans filed once morest the victims.” I think it can also affect the case,” he said. He added, “Financial institutions that will ask the victim of identity theft for all the damage caused by using the loan offerer to make additional operating profits should reflect on themselves, and the government, including the Financial Supervisory Service, should strictly monitor this.” Mr. A, who was judged in favor, said, “Among the victims like me, I lost both the first and second trials, so I was greatly relieved when I decided to inform other victims who were looking for personal rehabilitation or bankruptcy.” I hope that a device is in place so that victims like me do not come out.” Reporter Kwon Ji-dam [email protected]
1682299365
#Society #general #Society #News #Hankyoreh
