“Staff error acknowledged; funds lost to voice phishing must be returned” ... FSS dispute committee ruling

[Financial News] The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS)’s Financial Dispute Mediation Committee has ruled that a financial company is liable for returning a deposit when one of its employees makes a mistake. The ruling found the company liable in a case where an employee mistakenly closed a deposit account held in a customer’s son’s name and paid out the funds.
According to financial authorities on the 8th, the Financial Dispute Mediation Committee found the financial company liable for returning a deposit that had been wrongly closed due to an employee’s mistake.
The case began in 2024, when Applicant A visited a financial company and asked to open compound-interest term deposit accounts in her own name and those of her children. Without documents verifying the family relationships, an employee opened accounts in the names of Applicant B (her son) and non-applicant C (her daughter). A had a total of four accounts issued in a single passbook: one in her own name, one for her son and two for her daughter.
Later, Applicant A, acting on instructions from a voice-phishing scammer, went to the same branch and asked to close her own account and have a check issued. The employee mistakenly closed B’s account and transferred 50 million won to A’s account. A check for 95 million won was issued, combining that amount with the existing balance, and A handed the check to the scammer.
A later realized that the wrong account had been closed and tried to have the error corrected. But after being deceived again by the scammer, she told the employee she would not proceed with the correction. When no correction was made, the employee added B’s name to the transaction application form. A complaint was subsequently filed on suspicion of forgery of a private document.
A few days later, a further 50 million won was withdrawn from A’s deposit account and handed to the scammer. A later realized she had been defrauded and reported it to the police. She also filed a complaint with the FSS seeking compensation for losses caused by the employee’s negligence.
The Dispute Mediation Committee found that the deposit contract had been validly established in B’s name. Since the employee paid the closed deposit to A rather than returning it to a party to the transaction, B still had the right to claim its return, the committee determined. It also found that the payment to A, made because of the employee’s breach of the duty of care, could not be considered a lawful discharge of the obligation, and that under civil law, payment to an unauthorized person is not recognized either.
Accordingly, the financial company was required to pay B the deposit principal of 50 million won, plus 1,649,425 won in interest through the agreed maturity date. The committee also ruled that the company could not seek restitution of unjust enrichment from A, since it was difficult to conclude that she had effectively controlled or benefited from the closed deposit.
The FSS said, “This ruling confirms that financial companies may incur civil liability if they improperly handle deposits held in family members’ names,” adding, “We will continue to guide financial companies to comply with real-name and identity verification procedures when opening and closing accounts.”
Meanwhile, the mediation takes effect if A, B and the financial company accept the proposed settlement within 20 days of the day it is presented to them. It then has the same legal effect as a settlement in court.
[email protected] Park Mun-su Reporter