2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received a call from an unrefinite person who misrepresented himself/herself to an investigative agency, stating that “The F daily amount was created and used by stealing the Plaintiff’s name; and (b) during arrest, the card and passbook was discovered and the Plaintiff could become the perpetrator; and (c) confirmed the above financial information to the unfinite person.”

B. In using the Plaintiff’s financial information, the person under whose name is not nominal transferred KRW 12,054,00,000, totaling KRW 6,008,500, and KRW 6,005,20, and KRW 12,013,70, and the sum of KRW 6,000, and KRW 6,052,00, and KRW 6,000, to the post office account under the name of the Defendant C in the Plaintiff’s financial information, and KRW 6,098,50, and KRW 5,900,000 to the post office account under the name of Defendant D’s community credit cooperatives.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was refunded KRW 47,800 from Defendant C, KRW 9,300 from Defendant D, and KRW 2,926,880 from Defendant E in accordance with the Special Act on Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Prevention of Loss and Refund of Loss.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1-3 (including virtual number), and the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor under Article 760(3) of the Civil Act, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, since the Defendants, as joint tortfeasors under Article 760(3) of the Civil Act, are able to facilitate the crime of acquiring money from the Plaintiff by

B. In order to impose liability for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting another person’s tort, a proximate causal relationship between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by the victim’s tort should be acknowledged. The determination of whether a proximate causal relationship exists is based on negligence.