beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff received a telephone from a person who had misrepresented the NAAF employee and believed that it is possible to lend a low interest rate to another person. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 15,000,000 to the bank account in the name of the Defendant.
B. After that, the Plaintiff was suspended from payment to the above account under the name of the Defendant, and was paid KRW 1,317,748 from the above account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant could be used for the so-called singishing crime, even though it could have predicted or predicted that the defendant could be used for the so-called singishing crime, but could facilitate the financial fraud of the person under his name by informing him of the account number in his name at least due to negligence. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages as joint tortfeasor under
B. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aiding and abetting a tort shall be deemed a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aiding and abetting person.
Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort. Aiding and abetting by negligence is possible in the area of civil law in which negligence is the same as that of an intentional act, in principle, for the purpose of compensating for damages. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist a tort.
However, in order to hold another person liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting, there is a proximate causal relation between aiding and abetting act and the victim's damage caused by the tort, and when determining whether there is a proximate causal relation, it is predicted that the tort is easy due to the negligent act.