Guide to Compensation for Illegal Private Lending and Voice Phishing

Based on 27 consultation cases · Updated October 4, 2026 · Translated from the Korean original.

Providing a bankbook or personal information used in voice phishing does not always mean that you must compensate victims for the entire amount of their losses. Liability is assessed by considering the circumstances at the time of disclosure, whether the crime could have been foreseen, whether there is a causal connection between the conduct and the loss, and whether the financial institution failed to verify identity.

People involved → Account holder → Voice phishing victim → Bank or lender → Account or financial information was disclosed and a voice phishing loss followed → Could the account holder foresee voice phishing use? → No → Yes → Did the disclosure help the crime and connect to the loss? → Yes — Civil Act Article 760 → Did the bank or lender adequately verify identity? → Possible joint-tort liability Compensation is not automatic → Liability or loan repayment may be denied The facts and lender role matter → Check circumstances, number of accounts, and whether anything was received → Check identity verification and lender conduct No general text alert duty → Check the loss and any funds remaining A lesser role alone does not cap joint-tort liability → Circumstances and benefit → Bank or lender verification → Loss and possible recovery

Key points

When someone is tricked into handing over a bankbook, card, or password, civil liability for damages is assessed by examining whether they could have foreseen the voice-phishing crime, the circumstances in which they provided it, and whether they received anything in return (Cases 3 and 14).
Even if the person who provided the bankbook did not actively participate in the crime, they may be held liable for a joint tort if they could have foreseen that it might be used for voice phishing and made the crime easier (Civil Act, Article 760 (민법 제760조); Case 22).
Conversely, liability may be denied if it cannot be concluded that the person foresaw the crime—for example, because they provided only one bankbook and received nothing in return—or if an adequate causal connection between their conduct and the loss is not established (Case 14).
If a loan is issued after someone is tricked into entering financial information for voice phishing, that fact alone does not make the account holder a party to the loan agreement. Whether the financial institution adequately verified identity is among the factors considered when determining the agreement’s effect (Case 5).
A person who exposed financial information may be found to have been grossly negligent, but any failure by the lender or financial institution to verify identity that also contributed to the loss is considered in assessing liability (Cases 2 and 11).
There is also a court ruling that financial institutions do not have a general duty of care to notify customers by text message when a digital certificate is reissued. A financial institution’s liability depends on the specific circumstances, including the type of incident and the verification procedures used (Case 15).
A claim against the bankbook holder for the entire amount lost as unjust enrichment may not be recognized. However, there is a case in which a claim for the return of the remaining amount was recognized because the lost funds remained in the account and the account holder had a claim against the bank for repayment of the deposit (Cases 10 and 25).
There is a court ruling that, once a joint tort is established, liability to the victim cannot be limited to part of the loss solely because the person’s role was less significant. However, whether liability is established and how damages are assessed must be examined separately in each case (Civil Act, Article 760 (민법 제760조); Case 18).

Frequently asked questions

Q. I handed over my bankbook and card after being promised a job or a loan. Do I have to compensate victims for their voice-phishing losses?

Compensation is not automatic. Liability is assessed by considering whether, when handing over the account, you could have foreseen that it would be used for voice phishing, whether you received anything in return, how many accounts you provided, and the circumstances in which you provided them. If you provided the account despite being able to sufficiently foresee that it might be used in a crime, you may be held liable for a joint tort.

Case 3, Case 14, Case 22

Q. I was tricked into entering personal and financial information for a voice-phishing scheme. Do I have to repay a loan taken out in my name?

If the account holder did not apply for the loan personally or authorize someone else to act on their behalf, a loan agreement made using stolen information may be found to have no effect on the account holder. Factors considered include whether the lender adequately verified the applicant’s identity and whether there were suspicious aspects to the application information.

Case 5

Q. Does my own fault in disclosing financial information absolve the bank or lender of liability?

That cannot be stated categorically. A financial information provider’s failure to exercise due care and a financial institution’s failure to verify identity may both be at issue. In one case, a financial institution was found to have contributed to the loss by failing to check for irregularities in the loan application information.

Case 2, Case 11

Q. Can I claim compensation if the bank did not notify me by text when my digital certificate was reissued?

There is a court ruling that financial institutions do not have a general duty of care to notify customers by text message or other means when a digital certificate is reissued. The ruling also took into account, among other things, that the user had not signed up for a separate security text-message service.

Case 15

Q. Can I claim the entire amount lost to voice phishing from the bankbook holder as unjust enrichment?

The fact that a victim sent money through a transaction with a fraudster does not, by itself, mean that the victim can directly claim the entire loss from the bankbook holder. It must be examined whether the bankbook holder obtained a benefit directly from the victim without legal cause.

Case 10

Q. If some of the lost money remains in the account, can I demand that the bankbook holder return it?

There is a case in which a claim for the return of unjust enrichment was recognized for the amount remaining in an account, where the victim’s funds remained in the account and the bankbook holder had a claim against the bank for repayment of that deposit. This is distinct from a claim for the entire amount lost.

Case 25

Q. Can someone who exchanged money obtained through voice phishing also be liable for damages?

Even if someone did not actively participate in the crime, they may be held liable for negligently assisting it if they accepted a currency exchange request from someone whose identity they did not know well and could have foreseen that the money might be used in a crime. In the case, however, liability was limited after taking into account, among other things, that the victim had transferred a large sum without making meaningful checks on the other person’s identity.

Case 7

Q. Can I face criminal punishment even if I did not know the bankbook would be used for voice phishing?

A case explains that transferring an access medium used for electronic financial transactions is prohibited, and that the act of transferring it may itself be punishable even if the person did not know the specific purpose for which it would be used. Criminal liability and civil liability to victims for damages are assessed separately.

Case 3

Q. Will my compensation amount be reduced if my role in the voice-phishing organization was minor?

There is a court ruling that, once a joint tort is established, liability to the victim cannot be limited to part of the loss solely because the person’s role was less significant than that of the other accomplices. Whether liability for a joint tort is established in the first place must still be determined based on the specific circumstances.

Case 18

Relevant laws

Civil Act, Article 760 (민법 제760조)
Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 6(3), subparagraph 1 (전자금융거래법 제6조제3항제1호)
Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 9(2) and (3) (전자금융거래법 제9조제2항·제3항)
Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 49(4), subparagraph 1 (전자금융거래법 제49조제4항제1호)
Electronic Signature Act, Article 15 (전자서명법 제15조)
Electronic Signature Act, Article 18-2 (전자서명법 제18조의2)
Electronic Signature Act, Article 23 (전자서명법 제23조)

Watch out for

Civil liability is neither automatically established nor automatically ruled out merely because you provided a bankbook or exposed financial information. The circumstances of disclosure, whether anything was received in return, foreseeability, and the causal connection to the loss are important.
A claim for damages against a bankbook holder and a claim for the return of unjust enrichment may have different requirements and cover different amounts. It is also necessary to distinguish whether any of the lost money remains in the account and what benefit the account holder actually obtained.
A financial institution’s responsibility to verify identity or duty to provide text-message notifications is not assessed uniformly in every incident. The outcome in each case described depends on that case’s specific facts.

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).