A. The Defendant lent the passbook in the name of the Defendant to the name-dissatisfies.

B. On May 25, 2013, the Plaintiff access the Nonghyup Internet Bank website, and received a notice from the person who was unaware of his/her name, stating that “security should be strengthened,” and led him/her to the website, and entered the Plaintiff’s financial information according to the instructions.

C. By using the financial information entered by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 5.6 million in total from the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Defendant to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Defendant (= KRW 1.5 million, KRW 1.5 million, KRW 2.560,000, KRW 1.5 million), and all of the money deposited in the said Defendant’s account, including KRW 5.96 million, was withdrawn.

(hereinafter referred to as the "cmination crime of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, and 2-2, the results of inquiry into the head of IT headquarters of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In a situation where the Defendant could sufficiently anticipate that the passbook under his name can be used for the crime of this case, he is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, since he could lend the passbook under the name of the Defendant, thereby facilitating the tort of the Defendant.

B. The Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff and transferring KRW 59.6 million to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, obtained profits without any legal ground, and the Plaintiff suffered losses, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Code which causes damage to another person by several persons who jointly suffered from the defendant's liability to compensate for damages, the joint tort does not require any mutual recognition as well as any conspiracy among the actors. However, if the joint act is objectively related, it is sufficient that the joint act is objectively related, and the damage is caused by the related joint act.