The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by Defendant B, and the grounds of appeal by Defendants E, F, and G, a joint tort under the Civil Act is established in cases where multiple persons’ act objectively related to the grounds of appeal cause damage to others. It does not require not only the conspiracy among actors, but also the common intent or common perception among the actors.

In addition, such a common act can be recognized as being jointly related to the occurrence of damage, such as the acquisition of stolen goods by embezzlement, as well as the case of joint or aiding and abetting a tort itself.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001; 2012Da44969, Apr. 11, 2013). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where damage is sustained due to a specific crime because it is difficult or impossible to recover damage due to the specific crime by recognizing that the property is acquired due to a specific crime as prescribed by the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and cooperating in concealment and preservation thereof, etc.

The judgment below

The reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the court below revealed that ① Co-Defendant C of the first instance court, the representative director of the plaintiff, requested the court below to transfer the above embezzlement fund to Defendant E, Ba, who is the head of the embezzlement fund, and the head of the court below, five times from November 13, 2009 to November 30, 2009, the sum of KRW 330 million from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account to the KRW 20 million, and embezzled it from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account; ② on December 1, 2009, C requested for the money laundering of the above embezzlement fund to Defendant C before departure from Korea; ② on December 1, 2009, the head of the embezzlement fund deposited to Defendant B, who is the head of the tax accountant office, to the Defendant Eul, who is the head of the tax accountant office; ③ on December 1, 2009 through December 30, 2009, the court below held that Defendant D’s co-Defendant 300,000.