1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's new argument by this court as follows. Thus, this is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the Defendant did not directly participate in the preparation of the lease contract of this case, there is a proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s negligence and the loan of this case, the Defendant is liable for joint tort as an assistant of tort pursuant to Article 760(3) of the Civil Act.

In order to be held liable for a joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting another person's tort, a proximate causal relation shall be acknowledged between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by the victim's tort. In determining a proximate causal relation, the reasonable causal relation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the predictability of the circumstances that facilitate the relevant tort due to the negligent act, the impact of the negligent act on the occurrence of damages, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim's trust, and the degree of contribution to the victim's own trust, as well as whether the victim

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da91597, Mar. 27, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84707, Jan. 15, 2015). In the instant case, while the health unit and the Defendant are the persons holding the personal identification cards, seals, passbookss, etc. at the house, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant neglected the management solely due to such circumstance. Even if the Defendant’s negligence in the management can be recognized, F, a spouse, is the same.