[1] The elements for the establishment of joint tort

[2] The case holding that a joint tort is established in case where an investment in an act of fund-raising prohibited under the law was caused by soliciting investors to make an investment

[1] Article 760 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 760 of the Civil Act, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da41749 delivered on April 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1172), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13900 Delivered on September 29, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2201) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181 Delivered on May 8, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1353), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da35850 Delivered on January 10, 203 (Gong2003Sang, 616), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47014, 47021, 47038, 2033)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant (Law Firm Seog, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na43567 decided May 6, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Code which multiple persons jointly inflict damages on other persons, the joint tort is established without requiring not only a conspiracy among actors, but also a common perception: Provided, That if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint act, it is sufficient if the joint act is objectively related, and the joint tort is established which bears liability for damages caused by the pertinent joint act (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Da41749, Apr. 11, 2000; 2005Da47014, 47021, 47038, Jan. 26, 2006, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts in accordance with its adopted evidence, and found that the defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the amount of this case by taking part in the act of fund-raising without delay prohibited by the Act on the Regulation of Non-Party's Act on the Regulation of Non-Party's Act of Receiving Claims without Permission, although the plaintiffs knew or could have known that it is difficult to guarantee the principal and interest of the non-party company's profit even if they invested the amount of this case in the non-party corporation (hereinafter "non-party corporation"). In light of the above legal principles, the court below's fact-finding and decision are proper, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to joint tort, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. The fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a claim for damages caused by tort falls under the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da15746, Aug. 20, 199; 2005Da29207, Feb. 24, 2006). According to the records, the measures that the court below calculated the ratio of negligence of the plaintiffs to 30% are justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts concerning comparative negligence in violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)