Start with the money trail, not a conclusion about liability
A Korean bank account holder who receives a voice-phishing freeze notice may assume that every victim claim is already a legally fixed debt. The opposite reaction is also risky: lack of knowledge does not automatically end every civil question. A useful first step is narrower. Reconcile the account, separate each victim, identify what has already been recovered, and then test only the responsibility rates that you deliberately choose.
This calculator follows that sequence. It creates an Article 10 refund-allocation reference from user-entered Korean procedure amounts, removes confirmed same-loss recovery once, applies low, base, and high responsibility assumptions, subtracts payments already made by the account holder, and adds documented case costs and a household living reserve. It does not decide intent, negligence, negligent assistance, joint-tort liability, unjust enrichment, comparative fault, criminal responsibility, or the Financial Supervisory Service refund decision.
Payment freeze
A control on the account balance. It is not a final refund, civil judgment, or admission of liability.
Refund allocation reference
A planning calculation based on procedure damage and an assumed extinguished-claim pool. The FSS determines the real amount.
Civil cash exposure
A user-controlled scenario after same-loss recovery and holder payments. It is not a predicted settlement or judgment.
Who this Korea-based calculator is for
The tool is designed for an account holder, a family member helping an older relative, or an adviser preparing an evidence-based consultation after a Korean account or card was allegedly used for voice phishing. It is particularly useful when several victims, one or more freeze notices, partial refunds, private payments, and living-cost pressure have become mixed together.
- Use it to reconcile one account at one stated cutoff date.
- Use a separate alias row for every victim and keep the alias-to-case-number key offline.
- Enter only paid and evidenced recovery as confirmed recovery.
- Treat the extinguished-claim pool and every responsibility rate as an explicit assumption until an official or professional source confirms it.
- Use the output to prepare questions for the bank, police, FSS, and Korean counsel.
Do not enter personal identifiers
Use labels such as Victim A and Victim B. Do not enter a real name, phone number, bank-account number, resident registration number, full police statement, or other sensitive case material. This is a browser calculation, not a secure evidence repository.
Keep three recovery categories separate
Duplicate subtraction is one of the most consequential spreadsheet errors in a multi-victim case. If a KRW 3,000,000 transfer by the holder is recorded both as other recovery and as a holder payment, the same payment reduces the scenario twice. If an FSS-directed refund has already been paid but is omitted, unrecovered loss is overstated. Each transfer needs one category, one date, one source, and one supporting record.
Recovery categories, included amounts, and supporting evidence| Field | What belongs here | Evidence to match |
|---|
| Confirmed statutory refund | A refund that was actually paid through the Korean special-act process | FSS decision, bank payment record, and payment date |
| Other same-loss recovery | Confirmed recovery from another participant, bank, insurer, reversal, or returned transfer | Transfer proof, insurer statement, or written return confirmation |
| Already paid by holder | A direct payment by this account holder to this specific victim | Holder transfer record, receipt, and any settlement document |
How the Korean Article 10 allocation reference works
The Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Telecommunications Financial Fraud and Refund for Damage, Law ID 011359 and MST 283199, was checked in its version effective August 4, 2026. Article 4 addresses payment freezes. Articles 5 through 9 address the claim-extinguishment process, applications, account-holder objections, termination, and extinguishment. Article 10 addresses the FSS decision and the proportional calculation when total victim damage exceeds the extinguished claim.
In simplified planning form, the statutory proportion is the extinguished-claim amount multiplied by one victim's damage and divided by total victim damage. This calculator uses your procedure-damage entries as those weights. It deliberately asks for an assumed extinguished pool separately from the frozen balance because a current freeze is not itself a final extinguished claim or refund decision.
Exact-KRW calculation sequence
- Limit the allocatable pool to the smaller of the assumed extinguished pool and total procedure damage.
- Multiply that pool by each victim's procedure-damage share.
- Floor each result to whole KRW and distribute leftover won by largest fractional remainder, with input order as the tie-breaker.
- Cap the displayed planning allocation at claimed damage minus confirmed refund and other recovery.
- Show any unallocated assumed pool separately; never label it as money returnable to the account holder.
An additional victim application, a changed recognized-damage amount, an objection, pending litigation, or a different extinguished amount can change the real distribution. The output therefore says allocation reference, not expected legal entitlement. Confirm the live procedure with the financial institution and the FSS.
Civil-responsibility scenarios are inputs, not case predictions
The Korean Civil Act was checked as Law ID 001706, MST 284415, effective March 17, 2026. Article 750 requires an intentional or negligent unlawful act that causes harm. Article 760 addresses joint tortfeasors and treats instigators and assistants as joint actors. Article 763 applies, among other provisions, the comparative-negligence rule in Article 396 to tort damages. Article 741 addresses unjust enrichment, but an account title alone does not prove that the holder obtained and retained a benefit. Article 766 contains general tort limitation periods, whose accrual, interruption, and suspension remain case-specific.
Official Korean case materials illustrate why the calculator must not recommend one rate. Seoul Eastern District Court case 2010GaDan50237, decided March 28, 2011, found negligent assistance on its facts and limited responsibility to 70% after considering victim fault and related circumstances. Jeonju District Court case 2011Na9771, decided May 23, 2012, found negligent assistance on a different account-provision record and limited responsibility to 30%. These are fact-specific lower-court outcomes, not a statutory table, a nationwide average, or calculator defaults.
Uijeongbu District Court Namyangju Branch case 2022GaHap50780, decided July 26, 2024, involved an analogous crypto-account setting. The court found the evidence insufficient to establish credential knowledge, foreseeability, participation, or actual benefit merely from the account title and dismissed the joint-tort and unjust-enrichment claims. It is not a voice-phishing rate case, but it reinforces the product boundary: title alone must not trigger automatic liability.
Per-victim additional exposure
The calculator subtracts confirmed refunds, other recovery, and the allocation reference from claimed damage. It multiplies that unrecovered amount by your rate, rounds to whole KRW, and then subtracts the holder payment recorded for that victim. The result cannot fall below zero.
Case exposure and household liquidity
Settlement preparation, legal cost, and income interruption are added as response cost. The essential living reserve is added only to cash need. It is not victim damage or civil liability, and it remains visible as a household-protection assumption.
Step-by-step use
- Choose one cutoff date. Use a bank confirmation date or freeze-notice date so every balance, payment, and claim belongs to the same snapshot.
- Create one alias row per victim. Enter claimed damage, the procedure damage used for proportional weighting, confirmed statutory refund, other same-loss recovery, and holder payment.
- Reconcile one account. Enter related inflow, external outflow, current frozen balance, and refunds already paid from that account. Investigate the displayed difference rather than forcing it to zero.
- State the extinguished-pool assumption. If it is not officially confirmed, document why you used the frozen balance or another amount and expect the result to change.
- Set ordered responsibility rates. Keep low less than or equal to base and base less than or equal to high. The neutral 0%, 50%, and 100% example is not legal guidance.
- Add quoted and documented costs. Separate legal and settlement-preparation expenses, income interruption, the household living reserve, and cash that is genuinely available.
- Print questions, not conclusions. Mark every warning, unmatched flow, and unconfirmed field before asking the bank and Korean counsel what needs correction.
Worked synthetic example in KRW
The default example uses Victim A with KRW 60,000,000 claimed and procedure damage, KRW 6,000,000 confirmed refund, KRW 4,000,000 other recovery, and KRW 3,000,000 already paid by the holder. Victim B has KRW 40,000,000 claimed and procedure damage, KRW 4,000,000 confirmed refund, KRW 1,000,000 other recovery, and KRW 2,000,000 already paid by the holder.
With a KRW 30,000,000 assumed extinguished pool, the Article 10 reference allocates KRW 18,000,000 to Victim A and KRW 12,000,000 to Victim B. Unrecovered loss after those reference amounts is KRW 32,000,000 and KRW 23,000,000, or KRW 55,000,000 in total.
Synthetic responsibility scenarios and cash gaps in KRW| User rate | Additional victim exposure | Total case exposure | Cash need incl. reserve | Cash gap |
|---|
| 0% | KRW 0 | KRW 9,000,000 | KRW 15,000,000 | KRW 0 |
| 50% | KRW 22,500,000 | KRW 31,500,000 | KRW 37,500,000 | KRW 17,500,000 |
| 100% | KRW 50,000,000 | KRW 59,000,000 | KRW 65,000,000 | KRW 45,000,000 |
The base KRW 22,500,000 is not a forecast. It comes from applying 50% separately to KRW 32,000,000 and KRW 23,000,000, then subtracting the respective KRW 3,000,000 and KRW 2,000,000 holder payments. The example adds KRW 9,000,000 of response cost and KRW 6,000,000 of essential living reserve. With KRW 20,000,000 available cash, the displayed base cash gap is KRW 17,500,000.
Read the reconciliation warnings carefully
Account-flow difference
Related inflow minus external outflow, current frozen balance, and refunds paid from this account. A difference can reflect timing, fees, legitimate transactions, multiple accounts, or classification errors. It is not proof of taking or liability.
Claim-to-inflow difference
Total claimed damage minus related account inflow. Investigate other accounts, returned transfers, duplicated victim claims, and amounts that never reached this account.
Frozen-to-extinguished difference
Current frozen balance minus the pool assumed for allocation. The warning exists because freezing, extinguishment, and refund are distinct procedural states.
Unallocated assumed pool
The part of the assumption not assigned after statutory weighting and victim remaining-loss caps. It is not automatically available to the holder.
Evidence checklist before a Korean legal consultation
Account and procedure records
- Complete account ledger with counterparty and timestamp
- Freeze notice and frozen balance at the chosen cutoff date
- Claim-extinguishment notice, publication date, and covered amount
- Any holder objection, court filing, or notice received
- FSS refund determination and actual bank payment records
Conduct and recovery records
- How the account, card, password, OTP, device, or certificate was handled
- Any promised fee, payment, or other consideration
- Bank warnings and the time unusual activity became known
- Report, suspension, and contact timestamps and receipt numbers
- Per-victim transfer proof, receipt, and settlement material
Questions generated by the output
- What part of the frozen balance is actually within the current claim-extinguishment procedure?
- Can additional victim applications, objections, or litigation change the weights or pool?
- How should confirmed refunds, other recovery, and holder payments be credited in this case?
- Which facts and documents are still missing for intent, negligence, assistance, causation, and comparative fault?
- What dates and events matter for Civil Act Article 766 in this specific claim?
Frequently asked questions
Does a payment freeze mean that the entire balance will be refunded?
No. A freeze first prevents movement. The refund target and amount can change through applications, recognition of damage, claim extinguishment, objections, and litigation.
Is an account holder automatically liable for every victim loss?
No automatic conclusion follows from title alone. The inquiry can include transfer of the account or credentials, consideration, foreseeability, warnings, reporting, causation, benefit, and victim conduct. Lack of knowledge also needs evidence rather than assumption.
Should I use the 30% or 70% figures from the cited cases?
Not as defaults. They came from particular lower-court records and particular comparative-fault findings. They are useful reminders that facts matter, not a rate schedule.
Where do I enter a payment I already made to one victim?
Enter it only in that victim’s holder-paid field, provided it is not the same transfer recorded as a statutory refund or other recovery. Ask counsel how it should ultimately be credited.
Is the unallocated assumed pool returnable to the account holder?
The calculator does not make that determination. It only means the assumed pool exceeds what the current victim rows received after weighting and remaining-loss caps.
Does the calculator determine the limitation deadline?
No. Civil Act Article 766 includes general three-year knowledge and ten-year act references, but accrual, interruption, suspension, transitional rules, and claim characterization require case-specific review.
Official sources and limits
The statutes and official case records below were checked through the Korean National Law Information Center on August 27, 2026. A historical account-use date, freeze date, or alleged tort date may require the version then in force and later case developments. Recheck the live sources before relying on the output.
- Telecommunications Financial Fraud Prevention and Damage Refund Special Act, Law ID 011359, MST 283199, Articles 4 through 10
- Korean Civil Act, Law ID 001706, MST 284415, Articles 396, 741, 750, 760, 763, and 766
- Official case serials 149301, 164094, and 241421
Turn each number into a verification question
Print the allocation reference, account differences, three responsibility scenarios, and evidence list. Add a source beside each confirmed figure and mark every assumption. The unresolved rows become a concise agenda for the bank, the investigative authority, and Korean counsel. This planning calculator is not legal advice and does not replace an FSS decision, a settlement, or a court judgment.