The court of first instance dismissed both the primary and conjunctive claims, and the defendant appealed against only the claim for damages arising from joint tort, and the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the conjunctive claim.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the part concerning “basic facts” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the claim for damages arising from joint tort

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendants did not actively participate in the singing crime of this case, even if they did not know about the illegality of the transfer of the passbook (the card) at the time of opening the account, and confirmed it. In light of the fact that some of the accounts opened immediately before opening the singing crime of this case, they could have sufficiently predicted that their passbooks, etc. can be used in criminal acts, but by transferring them to the party under whose name they had committed a tort that facilitates the sing crime of this case against the plaintiff in the singing crime, so the defendants shall compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to joint tort.

B. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aiding and abetting a tort shall be deemed a joint tortfeasor and the aiding and abetting person shall be liable for the joint tort.

Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort, and it is possible to assist by negligence in the area of civil law in which negligence is the same as that of intention in principle for the purpose of compensating for damages. In this case, the contents of negligence should not assist in tort.