The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Upon Nonparty C’s request, the Plaintiff transferred the money indicated in the purport of the claim to the bank account under the name of the Defendant, which was directed by the Plaintiff to C, and the said money was transferred to the Defendant’s private village D account.

As the account in the name of the Defendant is used by E, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the same amount, in collusion with E and D, since the Defendant inflicted damages by deceiving the money stated in the purport of the claim from the Plaintiff.

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. Aiding and abetting by negligence is possible in the area of civil law in which negligence is the same as that of an intentional act, in principle, for the purpose of compensating for damages. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist a tort.

However, in order to be held liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting another person’s tort, a proximate causal relationship between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by a victim’s tort should be acknowledged. In determining whether a proximate causal relationship exists, caution shall be exercised so as not to excessively expand the liability, comprehensively taking into account the predictability of the circumstances that facilitate the relevant tort by negligence, as well as the impact of the damage caused by negligence on the commission of the tort, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim’s trust, and whether the victim

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da91597, Mar. 27, 2014). Before examining, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having conspired with E, D, and the Defendant himself.