손해배상(기)
1. Defendant C’s KRW 900,00 and its corresponding amount are 5% per annum from June 19, 2015 to January 15, 2016, and 0% from the following day.
1. On August 14, 2014, the temporary account holder: (a) on August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, on August 18, 2014, by deceiving Defendant B New Cooperatives E 640,000 won, KRW 3,000,000, Defendant CC Bank F38 August 18, 2014; and (b) on August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, on August 12, 2014, by deceiving Defendant D New Bank G4,000,000 won, who was misrepresented to Hyundai Capital Capital staff, was “it is possible to borrow up to KRW 25,00,000,000, from August 12, 2014 to August 18, 2014; and (c) wired KRW 22,640,000,000, out of the remittance amount as set forth below related to the Defendants’ list.
[Ground for recognition] Defendant B: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant B and D: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-11, 18, 19, and 21; the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendants asserting that the Plaintiff’s assertion was made by transferring the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff with the function of withdrawing from the account holder to the account holder, thereby aiding and abetting the act of fraud against the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the claim as compensation for damages caused by each joint tort committed against the party in the name of the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 7
B. Defendant C’s judgment on the cause of claim as to the cause of claim does not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion because it did not appear on the date of pleading and did not submit written answers and other briefs even after being served with lawful service by public notice. However, the scope of compensation for damages pursuant to the Civil Act is intended to take account of the obligee’s equivalent principle as to the occurrence of damages in accordance with the principle of equity if the obligee failed to exercise his/her duty required under the principle of good faith. Thus, even if a simple negligence theory, if damage was caused or expanded due to such failure, it shall be deemed that the victim was negligent and shall be deemed that there was negligence, and if the victim was found to have been negligent.