The bank employee lost 105,000 yuan to the merchant, and the court sentenced

"China Business Daily"

"Please scan the collection code ..." At present, taking out your mobile phone to scan the code and pay has become a convenient and fast transaction method for many people, but the shop operator Su Mou was in the lawsuit due to the negligence of a bank employee. The three -dimensional code of the three of them Chen was posted on the collection place of their own stores. In order to safeguard his legitimate rights and interests, Su sued a bank and Chen to the court, asking for compensation for the loss of 105,000 yuan.

The first instance of the Huaiyang District People's Court of Zhoukou City, Henan Province sentenced a bank to compensate Su for the loss of 30,000 yuan. Recently, Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court maintained a judgment of the first instance.

During the February Temple Fair of 2021, a bank employee introduced Su Mou to handle micro -payment business and suggested that he applied for a QR code to collect the payment, but did not open the receipt reminder business. Su Mou agreed. On March 13, the bank employees came to post the QR code for Su Mou's shop. Su Mou did not try on the spot. On March 27, 2021, Su Mou found that there were two merchants in the two -dimensional QR code displayed by two shop counter as a third party Chen, and then called a bank to solve it. The work error is willing to bear compensation, but 98,000 yuan required to compensate will not afford itself, hoping that Su will claim his rights to Chen.

On July 2, 2021, Su Mou charged the defendant Chen and a bank to the Huaiyang District Court with improper profit disputes. On September 18, 2021, Su submitted an application for withdrawal to the court, and the court ruled that the case was allowed. Subsequently, Su sued the defendant's bank with a service contract dispute, and Chen was a third party.

The first instance of the Huaiyang District Court believes that mobile payment, as an emerging method of transaction, also hidden certain risks while facilitating transactions. As a operator who provides mobile payments and a merchant using mobile payment, both should fulfill their attention obligations. The plaintiff Su advocated that a bank employee posted the wrong two -dimensional code and caused it to be lost. There was no objection to the fact that a bank had no objection to the facts, but it was not recognized for the loss of 105,000 yuan in the money it claimed, and the third party Chen did not recognize it. If the plaintiff Su was able to prove that the money that he lost all flowed into Chen's account, and Su Mou and Chen constituted improperly profitable disputes. Su Mou cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove that his claims have not proactively returned Su Mou's losses. There is a direct causal relationship between Su and a bank. There is a direct causal relationship between Su Mou's loss and a bank employee. Compensation should be made.

In the losses of the plaintiff Su, the court reviewed the situation according to the court and combined with the two other shops submitted to collect the QR code collection. Considering the occurrence of Su Mou's loss of losses, there were also some comprehensive factors such as a certain fault and other comprehensive factors such as comprehensive faults and other comprehensive factors. It is advisable to set the loss of a bank to 30,000 yuan. Picking up gold is a fine tradition of the Chinese nation, and no one can make a profit due to its illegal behavior. The improper benefits of this case were not protected by law because the plaintiff Su's proof could not obtain. After the defendant compensated Su's losses, he had the right to recover from the improper benefit of the case. If Su Mou has evidence to prove that after the defendant compensation, the improper benefits of the case still have improper benefits, and they can also claim their rights to the improper benefit.

During the second instance of the Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court, the parties did not submit new evidence, and the facts found that the facts identified in the first instance were basically the same.

Zhu Xuehua, the chief judge of the Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court, explained that Su and a bank set up a service contract relationship. Both parties should fulfill their obligations in accordance with the contract, but a bank employee was mistakenly posted into a third party when posting the QR code for Su Mou's shops. Chen's collection QR code has a direct causal relationship between the behavior of the wrong QR code and Su Mou's loss, and it should compensate Su's economic losses. The court in the first instance comprehensively determined that a bank compensated Su to 30,000 yuan was appropriate, and it was also the result of the court's free tailor. The judgment of the first instance determines that the facts are clear, the applicable law is correct, and it should be maintained.

Source: Rule of Law Daily

- END -