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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

However, C has withdrawn and used the above money remitted from the plaintiff to the account under the name of the defendant, and the defendant who lent the passbook and cash withdrawal card to C was involved in it by facilitating the above fraud by C, so the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above money.

2. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aiding and abetting a tort shall be deemed a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aiding and abetting person.

Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort, and the contents of negligence in this case refer to the violation of the duty of care on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist the tort.

However, in order to impose liability for joint tort as aiding and abetting another person's tort by negligence, proximate causal relation between aiding and abetting act and causing damage to a victim by tort should be recognized.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da91597, Mar. 27, 2014). However, in the instant case, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant knew or could have known the fact that he/she would facilitate the defraudation of C due to the Defendant’s act of allowing C to use his/her passbook and cash withdrawal card under his/her name, and merely because he/she was used in withdrawing cash by transferring the money remitted by C by himself/herself, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff contributed to the formation of the Plaintiff’s trust, which is the victim.

Therefore, a proximate causal relationship is recognized between the defendant's act of allowing C to use the means of access to electronic financial transactions and the plaintiff's damage.