구상금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to KRW 43,518,439 and KRW 43,091,219 among them, Defendant A shall be from January 9, 2014 to July 22, 2015.
In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, it can be acknowledged that the facts constituting the grounds for the attached claim are stated in the attached Form. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant A is liable to pay the amount of indemnity based on the Housing Finance Credit Guarantee Agreement with the plaintiff, and the remaining Defendants are liable to pay each money as stated in the order of compensation to the plaintiff who exercises vicariously the right
Defendant E argues that the above Defendant E’s liability should be limited by taking into account the fact that it was negligent in the course of lending to the Industrial Bank of Korea, which is the victim of illegal loans, and the degree of participation in illegal loans is minor. Thus, it is not allowed to assert that the person who intentionally committed an illegal act by using the victim’s care has reduced his responsibility on the ground of the victim’s care (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16758, 1675, Oct. 25, 2007). Even if the degree of one tortfeasor’s processing of illegal acts is minor compared to other perpetrator, the scope of the perpetrator’s liability cannot be limited in relation to the victim’s liability as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da31691, Oct. 20, 198). In this case, Defendant E cannot accept the scope of the Defendant’s right to compensation for damages through collusion with Defendant B, in order to acquire loans using the victim’s care.
All of the plaintiff's claims are accepted.