손해배상(기)
1. Defendant C’s KRW 6,240,00 and its amount per annum from August 1, 2016 to October 10, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the location of real estate owned and returned to the Plaintiff on the ground is unclear, and the evidence (Evidence A No. 1, No. 3, and Evidence No. 4-1, No. 4, No. 1, 2, and A No. 1) is inconsistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the location of real estate owned and returned to the Plaintiff on the ground by combining the instant real estate with the instant real estate and the instant real estate adjacent to the said two lots.
However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the return of the real estate, etc. of this case and the fact that the return of the real estate, etc. of this case was owned by the Plaintiff, and the fact that Defendant D took at least 30 shares during the return of the Plaintiff according to the orders of Defendant C, and thus
The return in this case (hereinafter “the return in this case”) is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendants conspired around July 2016 or before it, and intentionally stolen 89 shares of the return in this case.
Therefore, the Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18,512,00 (=89 weeks x 208,000 per share price) and damages for delay stated in the purport of the claim therefor.
2. Determination as to the existence of liability for damages by the Defendants
A. In order for a joint tort to be established, the common intent or common perception of the act among the actors is not necessary. However, it should be deemed that each actor committed a joint act based on his/her intent or negligence from an objective point of view, and thus, it should be deemed that there was a common cause for infringement of rights and damages to the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da3057, Dec. 28, 1982; 87Da2723, May 23, 1989). Thus, in order to recognize liability for damages on the ground of a joint tort, it should be clearly stated that each actor committed a joint act based on his/her intent or negligence.
Supreme Court Decision 208. April 1, 2008