Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. As to the assertion that it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize the tort liability against the defendant in addition to the default liability on the joint defendant B (hereinafter referred to as the "association of this case") of the court below, the association of this case recognized as the grounds in its holding, the responsibility of the joint defendant D of the court below and the defendant's tort liability against the plaintiff are different from each other.

Therefore, as long as the requirements for establishing tort against the plaintiff are met, the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal that differs from this opinion is without merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s tort liability regarding the supply of medicine, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the Defendant, who was the de facto operator and standing director of the instant union, was the so-called office hospital in violation of the Medical Service Act, despite the Defendant’s duty of good faith, and did not inform the Plaintiff of such circumstance, and thus, the instant association constitutes tort of deceiving the Plaintiff as if the Plaintiff would normally be repaid when the Plaintiff was supplied with the medicine from the Plaintiff. In so doing, the lower court held that the Defendant was liable for damages equivalent to KRW 37,576,423 of the unpaid pharmaceutical price incurred by the Plaintiff. Examining the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. As to the Defendant’s tort liability regarding the acquisition of indemnity liability

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the claim for indemnity against L, the actual operator of the instant association and the standing director of which the Plaintiff, without notifying the Plaintiff that E was a so-called office hospital in violation of the Medical Service Act, committed as if the instant association succeeded to the claim for indemnity against L, the operator of M Council and could make it impossible for the Plaintiff to take all measures to secure the claim for indemnity, and thereby, held that the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the claim for indemnity against L, the Plaintiff was unable to secure the claim.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

1) Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

A) On April 29, 2016, I paid KRW 18,300,000 out of L’s pharmaceutical payment liability of KRW 80,784,00 for L’s KK corporation, on behalf of L’s operator, and around June 1, 2016, I repaid the remainder of KRW 62,484,00.

B) As to the matters included in the instant comprehensive transfer and takeover agreement entered into with L on May 14, 2016, the following contents are that “A” and “B (the instant association) jointly take responsibility within the operating team of artificial extension (a division in charge of operation)” and “B” are liable for debt repayment when the issue of operating repayment arises due to the internal and external factors of B before the completion of the debt repayment.”

C) On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired I’s claim for indemnity against L from around June 1, 2016.

2) The lower court determined that tort liability was established due to the Defendant’s deception regarding the acquisition of the foregoing indemnity liability on the premise that the instant association exempted L from liability for the reimbursement liability. However, according to the foregoing factual basis, there is room to deem that the instant association, at the time of the conclusion of the instant comprehensive transfer and takeover contract, merely acquired L’s obligation to KK KK corporation and the reimbursement liability against I merely for the overlapping acceptance of the reimbursement liability. Furthermore, at the time of the instant comprehensive transfer and takeover contract, I repaid part of the pharmaceutical payment liability to K corporation, and repaid the remainder of the pharmaceutical payment after the instant comprehensive transfer and takeover contract, and thus, the Defendant should have further deliberated on the contents and scope of the obligation that the instant association would have caused the instant association to take over by the instant comprehensive transfer and takeover contract, and at any time and at any time, by whom time it had taken charge of the foregoing assumption.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court, which recognized the Defendant’s tort liability under the premise that the instant union took over L’s indemnity liability with respect to the Plaintiff, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Min Min-young