Successful Defense in a Damages Claim Lawsuit | KRW 630 Million Claim Fully Dismissed

Client Information

Individual / Defendant
 

Case Details

The defendant had been in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased since approximately 2005. The deceased was later arrested and indicted for fraud after conspiring with a third party to defraud the plaintiff company of approximately KRW 3.6 billion. On the day of the offense, KRW 630 million was transferred to the defendant’s bank account.

Relying on the facts that the defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased and that a large sum was transferred shortly after the crime and used for loan repayments and cash withdrawals, the plaintiff filed a civil damages lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant either participated in the fraud or assisted in concealing criminal proceeds.

In an unjust situation where the legitimate exercise of her rights was misconstrued as concealment of criminal proceeds, the defendant sought assistance from Decent Law Firm’s Civil Litigation Team to mount a legal defense and establish the substantive truth.
 

1. Proof of Legitimate Debt Repayment
Decent demonstrated that the defendant’s bank account had long been practically used by the deceased and that frequent financial transactions had occurred between them over many years. Based on this, the team established that the defendant held a legitimate loan claim exceeding KRW 630 million, and that the transfer constituted lawful debt repayment.

2. Absence of Awareness of Criminal Proceeds
The defense emphasized that there was no objective evidence showing that the defendant knew or could have known that the funds were proceeds of fraud at the time of receipt. In particular, Decent relied on the investigative authorities’ decision not to prosecute the defendant for concealment of criminal proceeds due to lack of suspicion.

3. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
Decent cited Supreme Court precedent holding that even if a debtor repays a debt using fraudulently obtained funds, the creditor is not obligated to return the money as unjust enrichment unless the creditor acted in bad faith or with gross negligence.

4. Blocking Improper Burden-Shifting
While the plaintiff challenged the defendant’s use of the funds, Decent argued that such use merely reflected the lawful disposition of personal assets received through valid debt repayment. The team made clear that attempting to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant was legally improper.