손해배상
1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 38,722,226 and KRW 37,138,737 among them, from July 25, 2014 to October 2015.
1. The facts in the separate sheet are as follows. The defendants are jointly obligated to pay the money recorded in the order to the plaintiff, because they did not dispute the plaintiff's assertion, so they were led to confession, or they can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap 1 through 14.
2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion
A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants’ liability under the principle of equity should be limited in light of the interests gained by the Defendants from the instant fraud crime (Seoul Southern District Court 2015No316) and the degree of participation in tort, etc., and accordingly, the Defendants’ liability should be reduced.
B. In a case where the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, the scope of the tortfeasor’s compensation should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor’s compensation. However, if the harmful act is an act of acquisition, such as fraud, embezzlement, or breach of trust, and thereby recognizing comparative negligence, it is not exceptionally allowed to offset the tortfeasor’s damages in cases where the harmful act would ultimately possess profits arising from the tort and bring about a result contrary to the principle of equity or good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da13637, Sept. 26, 2013). The Defendants committed a fraudulent act by intention, and thereby
In such a case, if the liability for damages is limited, the Defendants ultimately possess profits from the tort and bring about a result contrary to the principle of fairness or good faith. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion cannot be accepted.