beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) transferred KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s new bank account in the name of Defendant B to the Plaintiff’s one investment securities account (D) in the name of Defendant B; and (b) KRW 14.9 million from the future deposit account in the name of Defendant C (E).
The Defendants, as a joint tortfeasor under Article 760 of the Civil Act, are liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor under Article 760 of the Civil Act, by transferring or lending the passbook, etc. in the name of the Defendants to the person who was unaware of the name.
2. Determination:
A. 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 be held liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting another person’s tort, a proximate causal relationship between the aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by the victim’s tort should be acknowledged. In determining whether a proximate causal relationship exists, the reasonable causal relationship should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the probability of predictability of the circumstances that facilitate the relevant tort by negligence, the impact of the act by negligence on the occurrence of damages, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim’s trust, and the degree of contribution to the victim’s own
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da91597, Mar. 27, 2014). Meanwhile, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.