In hearing the phrase “,” and then remitting KRW 50 million to the account under Defendant B’s name designated by the person in whose name the same day was the same, and KRW 22 million to Defendant C’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion-in-factor, who intends to borrow 60 million won to the Plaintiff as an interest of 3% per annum, deceiving the Plaintiff that the existing loan should be repaid, thereby receiving a total of KRW 72 million from the Plaintiff to the Defendants’ account designated by the non-name-in-factor.

In the first place, the Defendants assisted the Plaintiff to commit the phishing fraud by providing their own account, and thus, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for tort equivalent to the amount of each subscription.

Preliminaryly, the Defendants: (a) obtained profits for each of the inputs without any legal grounds; and (b) thereby inflicted damages on the Plaintiff; and (c) should return such profits to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant B’s assertion of tort refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate a tort, and thus, it is possible to tide by negligence in the area of civil law where negligence is the same as that of an intentional act, in principle, for the purpose of compensating for damages. The content of negligence in this case refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that it does not have to assist a tort.

However, in order to impose joint liability for aiding and abetting another person's illegal act as negligence, it should be recognized that there is considerable relation between aiding and abetting act and the victim's damages caused by the illegal act.