손해배상(기)
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 118,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 21, 2016 to the date of full payment.
1. The fact that Defendant B received KRW 118,00,000 from the Plaintiff ten times from June 27, 2013 to April 17, 2015, on the ground that, even if Defendant B borrowed money from the Plaintiff, he/she did not have any intention or ability to repay the money, he/she would not have any difference in personnel expenses incurred in performing road construction works in Hongcheon. If he/she borrowed money, he/she would immediately receive the payment for the completed portion, and the fact that he/she received KRW 118,00,000 from the Plaintiff without any dispute between the said parties.
According to the above facts of recognition, the above act of Defendant B constitutes acquiring the Plaintiff’s money, which constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 118,00,000,000, which was acquired by deceit as compensation for tort, and the amount calculated by 15% per annum from December 21, 2016 to the day of complete payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C
A. When Defendant B received money obtained by deception from the Plaintiff, Defendant B received money through the account in the name of Defendant C.
Defendant C lent his account with knowledge that his account was used in the crime committed by Defendant C.
Such lending of Defendant C’s account constitutes the collaborative act or aiding and abetting the act of defraudation by Defendant B.
Therefore, Defendant C is also liable to the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort.
B. The fact that Defendant B received the defrauded money through the account in the name of Defendant C does not conflict between the parties.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone provided that Defendant C knew that the account under his name will be offered to Defendant B’s fraud.
It is insufficient to recognize that the account has been used in order to facilitate or facilitate it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3...