1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the part of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the “application for the conversion of the arrival” in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “application for the conversion of the arrival”. Thus, this part is

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to impose liability for aiding and abetting negligence on the holder of a means of access on the ground that an electronic financial transaction has been conducted through the means of access beyond imposing the legal effect on the holder of the means of access, such electronic financial transaction constitutes an individual tort on the ground that it constitutes an individual tort, based on the specific circumstances at the time of the transfer of the means of access, and that it would facilitate such tort by allowing the use of the means of access. As such, proximate causal relation between the transfer of the means of access and the damage caused by the tort should be acknowledged. Whether such possibility exists should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and background leading up to the transfer of the means of access, the possibility of transfer, the existence of the purpose of transfer, the identity of the recipient, the identity of the recipient, the degree of contribution to the tort using the means of access, and the confirmation of the transferor as to the situation of the use of the means of access (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da98222, Dec. 24, 2014).

Even if the defendant's account delivered by the defendants to his name in the name was used for the tort of this case, it is as seen earlier, and this is the deposit passbook, cash card, etc.