beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to KRW 77,949,398 among Defendant A and its KRW 77,949,398, Defendant A, from January 19, 2016 to June 14, 2019.
Reasons
1. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants except Defendant J
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
B. Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act on the determination of Defendant A, B, D, G, and I’s claims (a judgment by service by public notice)
C. Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Confession) on the determination of claims against Defendant C, E, F, and H
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant J
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), the facts as stated in the reasons for the claim can be recognized.
B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff's subrogation to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim") as a joint tortfeasor, barring special circumstances.
C. Defendant J’s assertion 1) The degree of participation is minor and its liability should be limited. 2) The joint tort liability is not individually sought from each individual act committed by the perpetrator, but is held against the tort jointly committed by the perpetrator. As such, the scope of the liability for damages caused by the joint tort is determined by comprehensively assessing and assessing all the acts committed by the perpetrator in relation to the victim. The tortfeasor bears the responsibility for the total amount of the compensation for damages. Even if the degree of the tort processed by one tortfeasor is minor compared to other tortfeasors, the scope of the tortfeasor’s liability is limited to the part of the amount of damages determined as above in relation to the victim.
Supreme Court Decision 98Da31691 Decided October 20, 1998 and Supreme Court Decision 98Da31691 Decided September 29, 2000.