손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion at the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, while substantially operating E, issued a false tax invoice to C in the process of applying for a corporate purchase loan to a corporate bank, and approved a false transaction on the Internet website of Mesacom, and participated in the above fraudulent loan by returning the corporate purchase loan transferred to the account under his own name to B. As such, the Plaintiff suffered damages by subrogation for corporate purchase loan on behalf of B who received a false loan. As such, the Defendant, as a joint tortfeasor, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above corporate purchase loan. (2) Even if the Defendant did not directly participate in the fraudulent loan, the Defendant violated Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by allowing C to use the authorized certificate under his name, passbook, Internet banking card, etc., and then did not recover the loan from the corporate purchase bank for a long time until C obtained a long period of time.
Ultimately, the defendant can be deemed to have sufficiently predicted that his authorized certificate will be used for a criminal act as a result of the long-term transfer of his authorized certificate. Therefore, tort liability as a negligent aiding and abetting act is established
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of damages equivalent to the corporate purchase fund loan due to the above illegal act.
B. Whether the Defendant was involved in C’s false loans while substantially operating E.