The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff offered a bribe to the Defendant in the manner of raising funds for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s loan through D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd”) through the agent or agent, by actively deceiving the Plaintiff and borrowing the method of paying the purchase price of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff to deliver the money requested by the Defendant as a bribe. The Defendant also received the said money to the account in the name of Nonparty Co., Ltd, while taking part in the said fraud by receiving the said money to the account in the name of Nonparty Co., Ltd., knowing that the said money was a bribe provided by C, the Defendant was a joint tortfeasor, and thus, the Defendant was liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff as the joint tortfeasor.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of tort by fraud and Article 116(1) of the Civil Act, without exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.