1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 45,421,877 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from November 21, 2012 to January 28, 2016.

1. The plaintiff's judgment on the plaintiff's claim is asserted as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the annexed sheet, and it can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the evidences Nos. 1 and 12 (including additional numbers).

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay KRW 51,507,800, which the Plaintiff repaid on behalf of the Plaintiff as claimed by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to Defendant B and E’s assertion

A. Defendant B and E asserted that, first of all, Defendant B and E, the lending bank, was negligent in confirming the existence of Defendant A’s employment only with the wire currency, and considering the degree of recognition and involvement in the course of the instant fraud loan, Defendant B and E, as in the case of other Defendants who have planned to commit a crime against the Plaintiff, sharing the same responsibility for the entire scope of the damages as in the same manner as in the other Defendants who have derived from the planned crime, is unreasonable in light of the principle of compensation for damages, namely, the fair and reasonable sharing of damages, and at least, the scope of responsibility should be limited to up to 50

On the other hand, when the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damages caused by a tort, it shall be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor’s damages. However, when the harmful act recognizes comparative negligence, such as fraud, embezzlement, and breach of trust, if the harmful act is an act of acquisition of profits arising from the tort, the perpetrator would ultimately possess profits arising from the tort and thereby bring about a result contrary to the principles of equity or good faith, it is not exceptionally allowed to offset the amount of negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da1146, Sept. 26, 2013). Joint tort liability is not individually seeking damages from each individual’s act, but is to enforce the liability for the tort jointly committed by the perpetrator. Therefore, joint tort