부당이득금등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation in this judgment is as follows: ① The part of "A evidence Nos. 2 and 10 through 19" in Part VII of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① "All evidence submitted by the plaintiff to the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the court of first instance and the circumstances of the assertion, such as the results of inquiries into the National Credit Union Federation of Korea, No. 2, No. 10 through 19, and each of the evidences No. 7 of the evidence No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and each of the evidences submitted by the plaintiff to the trial of the trial of the court of first instance, No. 10 through No. 19, and Korean bank of Korea, etc."; ② The plaintiff's assertion is as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was clearly known that Defendant A, a co-defendant of the first instance trial, arbitrarily disposed of the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff and embezzled the act of embezzlement. Although the Defendant did not actively participate in the above embezzlement, the Defendant, at least, assisted and abetted the buyer of the said machinery by allowing the buyer of the said machinery to take out the said machinery, thereby facilitating the above A’s embezzlement.
Therefore, the defendant is the joint tortfeasor with respect to the embezzlement of the above A, and is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff by the embezzlement act as above.
B. In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act where several persons jointly inflict damages on another person, the interpretation of the Civil Act, unlike the Criminal Act, which aims at compensating for damages, refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the tort, is capable of aiding and abetting by negligence. However, the content of negligence in this case is the duty of care not to assist the tort.