A. On November 12, 2019, the Plaintiff, who misrepresented to the inspection of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office, transferred the so-called Bosishing fraud to the company bank account in Defendant B’s name on the same day and KRW 50 million to the Saemaul Treasury account in Defendant C’s name.

B. The Plaintiff filed a report on the occurrence of the phishishing damage in the T-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

[Reasons for Recognition] The determination as to the claim against the defendant B, as a whole, of the non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

A. Although Defendant B had a duty of care to not use the account in the name of the Plaintiff for the phishing crime, he neglected his duty of care, thereby aiding and abetting the Plaintiff’s illegal act against the Plaintiff. Defendant B, in collusion with the name of the non-person in charge of the phishing fraud, committed the crime of fraud in collusion with the Plaintiff, thereby causing damage equivalent to KRW 30 million that the Plaintiff remitted to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for the tort and delayed damages to the Plaintiff.

In electively, Defendant B obtained profits by acquiring the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to its own account without any legal ground. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount, and thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 30 million won and delayed damages.

B. First of all, as to the Plaintiff’s joint tort claim, Defendant B committed a joint tort by intention or negligence on the sole basis of the evidence and the Plaintiff’s assertion.

It is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it (No. 5.