[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants could be used for the so-called phishing crime, but transferred the account under one’s name to the person who was unaware of his name, or made it easier for the Defendant to commit the financial fraud of the person who was unaware of his name by allowing the person who was unaware of name due to negligence to open the passbook under the name of the Defendant. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages as joint tortfeasor under

c. Claim against Defendant D, F, and G

(a) Defendant D or F: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(b) Defendant G: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. Partial dismissed portion: (a) the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was amended to reduce the statutory interest rate of 15% per annum; and (b) the part of the claim for damages for delay in excess thereof was partially dismissed as it was enforced from October 1, 2015. (d) Article 760(3) of the Civil Act of the claim against Defendant B, C, E, and H imposes joint tort liability on the aiding and abetting person by deeming the aiding and abetting person as joint tort.

Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort. Aiding and abetting by negligence is possible in the area of civil law in which negligence is the same as that of an intentional act, in principle, for the purpose of compensating for damages. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist a tort.

However, illegal acts of others.