[1] The case holding that a game service provider does not have an obligation to verify identity when the third party applied for membership to online game service by stealing another person's name, and the game service provider does not have an obligation to actively verify whether the applicant is the person in conformity with the real name information in the process

[2] The meaning of "helping and aiding" under Article 760 (3) of the Civil Code, and whether aiding and abetting a tort by negligence (affirmative)

[3] The degree of an online game service provider's duty of care to block another's identity theft and the method of determining whether the provider's duty of care is violated

[4] In a case where a third party joined as a member of multiple connection online roll-based game service by stealing another person's name, the case holding that in light of all the circumstances, a game service provider has fulfilled its duty of care to prevent member's membership and use due to the identity theft, and thus, it is unlawful for aiding and abetting the fraudulent name theft

[1] The case holding that a game service provider is not obligated to verify identity when the third party applied for membership to online game service by stealing another person's name, and the game service provider does not actively confirm whether the applicant is the person who conforms to the real name information in the process of approving the application for membership

[2] Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aided or an assistant shall be deemed a collaborative act, and imposes liability on an aided or an assistant as a joint tortfeasor. Aiding or abetting refers to all direct or indirect acts facilitating a tort, and includes not only cases of commission but also cases of facilitating the commission of a tortfeasor due to omission by a person liable to act, who does not take all measures to prevent it. Unlike the Criminal Act, interpretation of the Civil Act, which indicates negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, can be aiding and abetting by negligence. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of this duty under the premise that the aided or abetting has a duty of care not to assist a tort. In order to impose liability on the aided or abetting, there is a proximate causal relation between aiding and abetting and the tort of the aided or abetting.

[3] Even though the online game service provider does not bear the duty of identification in the online member subscription procedure, it is reasonable to view that the online game service provider has the duty of care not to assist in the act of identity theft by taking appropriate measures to block the game service where it could have known that there was an applicant for the use of the online game service and a person using the above game service by stealing the name among the users. However, considering that it is not easy for the online game service provider to individually grasp the actual condition of the user's use of the service from time to time through the Internet and identify whether the user's use of the service is a member's identity or use by fraudulent name, the proper duty of care borne by the online game service provider should not be deemed to be the highest level to prevent such identification in any case. The development level of the relevant Internet technology, characteristics of information and communications services provided, commercial character of the service provider as the operator, profits and disadvantages to the general users following the introduction of technical means, etc. should be determined in full consideration of the degree of the online game service provider's duty of care and its violation.

[4] In a case where a third party joined multiple connection online roll-line game services by stealing another person's name and used it as a member, the case holding that, in light of all the circumstances, the game service provider fulfilled his/her duty of care to prevent member's identity theft and its use as a member, and thus, it constitutes tort liability for aiding and abetting the

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act; Articles 2(1)3, 3, and 22 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection / [2] Article 760(3) of the Civil Act / [3] Article 760(3) of the Civil Act; Articles 2(1)3 and 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. / [4] Article 760(3) of the Civil Act; Articles 2(1)3 and 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

[2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da31264 delivered on December 23, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 222) Supreme Court Decision 99Da41749 delivered on April 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1172) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da35850 Delivered on January 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 616)

Plaintiff 1 and 10675 (Law Firm Kal, Attorneys Park Ba-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Hwang Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 12, 2007

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to each of the plaintiffs 1 million won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) Defendant 1 Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) develops the software and service environment of “MORPG” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant game”) for “NI” and “Liby II” games (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant game”), which are mainly engaged in the development of the game service to provide users with the instant game service for fee. From August 19, 1998 to August 19, 1998, Defendant 2 was in office as the representative director of the Defendant Company, and has led the development and operation of the instant game by accessing many users in real time to the Defendant Company’s computer server at the same time with the Internet and other network technologies developed recently.

(2) The plaintiffs asserted that they suffered damage from the theft of identity by being admitted to online members of the defendant company with the name and resident registration number stolen by others during the period from around 2001 to March 2006, even though they did not have joined as online members of the defendant company to receive the game service of this case developed and operated by the defendant company.

B. Procedures for online member joining of the instant game service and the use of the game service

(1) In order to use the instant game service, the applicant first confirms the content of the “Terms and Conditions of Use” posted on the instant web site (hereinafter “instant information protection policy”) and the “Personal Information and Juvenile Protection Policy” (hereinafter “Personal Information Protection Policy”) of the Defendant company, and consented thereto, and then enters the name and resident registration number of the applicant into the online web site (hereinafter “instant web site”) into the game server (hereinafter “instant web site”), and then establishes a clean program as necessary for actual game service, and then establishes the user’s computer on the Defendant company’s own computer, which would result in the Defendant company’s online member registration procedure. The applicant is entitled to use the “Real Name and Juvenile Protection Policy” other than the instant web site (hereinafter “Personal Information Protection Policy”) and the “Real Name and Personal Information Protection Policy” of the Defendant company, which is the real name registration number and personal identification number of the applicant, by entering the name and resident registration number into the Defendant company in real name and personal name verification procedure, and then, can be identified as the “real name and personal identification number of the applicant.”

(2) Meanwhile, at the time of the commencement of the game service of this case, the defendant company allowed the user applicant to enter his/her name and resident registration number online as member information in the course of joining and registering the game of this case, but did not go through a separate verification procedure as to whether the user's name and resident registration number are real name information, without going through a separate verification procedure as to whether the user's name and resident registration number are real name information, and allow the user to enter his/her name or resident registration number which is not real name information, such as his/her name and resident registration number which are not real name information, and actually concealed his/her identity and make an anonymous duplicate of his/her identity. In cases of "Li II", from August 8, 2003, and from October 6, 2004, in cases of "LiiI", the defendant company, which is implementing the above real name verification procedure, and approves only those who want to enter the online member under the premise that the user applicant is his/her name and resident registration number (hereinafter referred to as "real name verification procedure of this case").

C. Contents and characteristics of the game service of this case

(1) Since the Defendant Company started its commercial service after its development around September 1998, it used the instant game service by operating the “Character” of its own choice in the virtual space within the game of this case, where the Defendant Company provided the game server as a unit of the game server, and in cooperation with or competition with the character of other users, and by creating a community with other characters, without any specific game story given in advance, the users themselves experience various virtual world through the game of this case and create a single society.

(2) After completing the above online member registration procedure and the account registration procedure, the user inputs his account information by accessing the game server through the Closon program. The user selects the character to be operated within the game by combining the total of 5 Clouses (military owners, news articles, Elouses, Elouses, and Clofs) and gender provided in the game of this case. The character can generate only 4 up to one account. Before implementing the real name verification system of this case, only the number of accounts is rarely limited in creating the account or character in the case of the user who multiple member by using the tea or processed resident registration numbers, etc., but after the real name verification system of this case was implemented, it was limited to 5 accounts for one real name information of this case and only 20 character creation.

(3) The game of this case is an important factor that enhances the life capacity of character or enhances fighting capacity of character when a character is used in a virtual community life. The game of this case is "a item" by acquiring and using "a item", which is a virtual product that enables users to develop and grow its character in favor of himself/herself. The "a item" can be distinguished from "defense tool", such as inspection, window, straw, shoot, straw, spath, spath, so as to protect himself/herself, such as "defry book", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", and "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", "profes", and "profes" or "profes"," within the game of this case.

(4) In the game of this case, the accumulation and use of an item as above become an important element of harming the success and superior advantage among the users, and as a result, among the users, there was an attempt to accumulate items and grow character by selling them in cash through transactions outside the game of this case to acquire items in the way of exchanging items between other users and exchanging characters outside the game of this case. This is not for enjoying the game of this case itself, but for the purpose of selling them in cash to other users outside the game of this case, the so-called "place of work" in which the game of this case participates in the game of this case for the purpose of selling them after receiving cash from other users. In addition, the game of this case is created by the broker that specializes in the above transaction between the game users of this case, and thereby creating the game of this case or acting as a broker within the web site of this case.

(d) Occurrence of an online member membership registration case by a large-scale theft;

(1) As a matter of principle, the Defendant Company received reports from the beginning of the commencement of the instant game service, as a matter of principle, on which it received online member registration by fraudulent name theft. On August 2005, it was found that the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, in which the instant game service broker purchased items in China in a large quantity and illegally remitted large amounts of prices to China, was discovered, and the investigation was being conducted. In the process, it was discovered that the Defendant Company registered the account after he/she joined the instant game by misappropriation the real name information of Korean people for the purpose of accumulating items for sale in bulk for the purpose of accumulating items in the workplace in China. On August 22, 2005, the Defendant Company notified the investigative agency of the information on the total 106,836 of the registration account and took measures of seizure (Prohibition of Use) against the accounts suspected of fraudulent name theft.

(2) In addition, as the number of online members of the game of this case was increased rapidly from November 2005 to October 2005, the defendant company discovered that the remaining parts of the member's e-mail address, etc. are the same as each other's real name information, and that there are many accounts registered as a member by the identity theft, and it became doubtful that the above member's identity theft case was a social issue as a result of a report on the media around February 14, 2006, and the defendant company became a serious social issue on and around the same day through the web site of this case, the defendant company confirmed whether the member's online member's identity was a member of the game of this case by using his real name information of this case from November 2005 to the increase of the number of member's membership, and as a result, the receipt of the report by the person asserts that he was a member of the online member of this case's game of this case by using his own real name information of this case.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 18-1 and Eul evidence 18-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) In light of Article 7 of the terms and conditions of use of the game of this case established by the defendant company itself, the "Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc." (hereinafter "Information and Communications Network Act"), and the basic law applicable to the provider of information and communications services such as the defendant company's own information, the interpretation and purpose of the provisions related to the information protection policies of this case, the speculative and commercial characteristics of the game of this case, the circumstances and effects of the defendant company's implementation of the real name verification system of this case, the circumstances where the identity theft of this case occurred in large scale, and the environment of information where the leakage of personal real name information on the Internet is spread, etc., the defendant company attempted to identify whether the user of this case is the person who conforms to the real name information of this case, or whether a third party other than the person who conforms to the real name information of this case intends to become a member and to assist the game of this case outside the game of this case by easily finding it in advance, thereby enabling the plaintiffs to enter the game of this case to use it.

(2) In addition, the Defendants had been aware of the fact that it had already been widely used by the workplace or item brokers prior to the occurrence of the fraudulent name theft in large scale, and in particular, since the implementation of the real name verification system of this case, the inducement of such fraudulent name theft was increased, and under such circumstances, additional means of identification such as "additional verification document submission of personal identification", "personal phone identification system", "credit card identification system" and "certification system of official identification certificate" are introduced in addition to the real name verification system of this case, additional methods of identification such as "additional verification document submission of personal identification", "personal identification system", "personal identification system" and "personal identification system" are introduced, and the method of blocking the use of the user's access area or membership information in the online membership procedure by closely reviewing the user's access area or membership information in advance, the method of blocking the use of fraudulent name theft in the online membership or the same Internet service that is presumed to have been used by the brokers, regardless of whether it had been access to or not, in the online membership or use of the fraudulent name identification system.

(3) Defendant 2, as the representative director of Defendant Company, is a general manager who develops and operates the game of this case with the above problems, and approved the joining in the online member joining procedure by the identity theft holder of this case on behalf of the Defendant Company, and thereafter aids and abets by neglecting the use of the game service by the above identity theft holder, and thus, is liable for tort independently. Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 2 who is the representative director under Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act.

Even if the sole tort liability against Defendant 2 is not established against Defendant 2, the above aiding and abetting act was committed as a whole as the operation of Defendant Company’s business, and thus Defendant Company is liable for tort.

(4) As the victims of the identity theft of this case, the plaintiffs of this case, as the victims of the plaintiff's tort, are KRW 50,000,000,000,000, and KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 200,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won + KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won + KRW 20,000,00,000,00,000,00 won + KRW 50,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,000,00 won + KRW 20,000,00,00,00.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

(1) In the structure of the claim for tort of this case, on the premise that the plaintiffs alleged as the victim of the identity theft of this case had the burden of proving that they were admitted as online members of the game service of this case by stealing their names from the workplace or item brokerage against their own will, a considerable number of the plaintiffs cannot be recognized as victims of the identity theft of this case.

(2) The implementation of the instant real name verification system and the approval of the application for membership registration for the illegal persons who stolen the plaintiffs' names in the online membership registration procedure of the instant game service are conducted according to the mechanical procedures that were conducted by the employees of the relevant department of the Defendant Company or through the instant website, and cannot be deemed as tort caused by Defendant 2, the representative director, and therefore, there is no ground for the joint and several liability assertion under the Commercial Act against the Defendant Company based on such premise.

(3) In relation to the implementation of the instant real name verification system against an applicant for use in the online membership registration procedure of the instant game service, there is no contractual, statutory, and logical basis that the Defendant Company has separate obligation to verify the identity in order to protect the Plaintiffs.

(4) Unlike the plaintiffs' assertion, workplace or item broker's business activity does not benefit the defendant company. Accordingly, the defendant company strictly prohibited the off-the-counter transaction of an item by workplace or item broker, etc., and at the same time, prepared a means of surveillance and blocking within the technical and economic limits, which can be technically and economically acceptable with respect to the act of identity theft, and made best efforts to prevent membership and use by identity theft, such as taking corresponding sanctions, etc. In the case of detection, the defendant company did not neglect or interfere with the illegal act of identity theft.

(5) Among the damage items claimed by the plaintiffs, property damage cannot be actually acknowledged as having caused such property damage, and the remaining damage is not a substantial damage but a threat of future harm that has not yet been realized, and it cannot be said that there is damage to the plaintiffs.

3. Determination

A. As to the plaintiffs, which are partially rejected

(1) In order to establish tort liability due to aiding and abetting the identity theft of this case by violating the duty of identification or not taking appropriate measures to prevent the identity theft of this case, as in the case of general tort liability, the victim of this case should prove that he was admitted to online member of the game service of this case with stolen name by another person in the case of the identity theft of this case. Thus, even though the identity identity theft of this case was committed in secret regardless of the plaintiffs' intent, it is not easy to trace the existence of the identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity holder who can be deemed a direct offender in this case and the details of fraudulent act are not easy. Considering that the duties related to the online member identity theft of this case relating to the game service of this case are within the control area of the defendant company, the plaintiffs should first prove to some extent that the names

(2) However, according to the separate list 1 through 4 of the plaintiffs of this case and the total number of 9,450 plaintiffs [10,676 plaintiffs - 1,26 plaintiffs - 10,679 (205 - 2238 - 205 - 1115 defendants - 2, 38197 - 38 - 2005 - 197 - 17 - 5 of the plaintiff's online data base's identity identity verification - 10,676 - 2 of the plaintiff's personal information of this case's non-indicted 5 of this case's non-indicted 1 and 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's evidence of this case'

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the liability for damages arising from the tort against the Defendants in short of the proof of this case is without merit without further review, and below is limited to the remaining Plaintiffs except the Plaintiffs in short of the proof of this case (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”) and can only be viewed as to whether the liability for damages arising from the tort by the Defendants was established.

B. Whether Defendant 2 is an independent responsible entity of the tort liability of this case

(1) According to the facts established under Paragraph (1), Defendant 2, as the representative director of the Defendant Company, has led the development and operation of the game of this case as well as the external representative director of the Defendant Company, and according to the overall purport of each of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, the name and the qualification of the representative director of the Defendant 2 can be acknowledged as indicated in the lower end of each web page of the web site of this case. However, under the premise of establishing tort liability by aiding and abetting the game of this case, Defendant 2, as the premise of establishing tort liability by aiding and abetting the game of this case, directly approved the act of joining the game of this case without proper identification procedure against the application of the identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity identity, or as a person with the duty of care to prevent the identity identity identity or identity identity identity identity theft of the contents alleged by the Plaintiffs during the course of operating the game service of this case, it is insufficient to view the company as the principal agent of the Defendant’s duty of care to be a member joining or handling the business of this case as a whole, and there is no other evidence to deem otherwise.

(2) Therefore, the argument about the establishment of independent tort liability against Defendant 2 with respect to the identity theft of this case is without merit, and on this premise, the argument about the establishment of joint and several liability pursuant to Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act against the defendant company cannot be accepted. However, as the plaintiffs' preliminary assertion, the issue is whether tort liability is established due to the defendant company's independent aiding and abetting act in relation to the identity theft of this case.

C. Whether the defendant company's duty of identification arises on the premise of tort liability of the defendant company

(1) Whether there are grounds under the terms and conditions of use of this case

(A) According to Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 18-1, and Eul evidence No. 18-2, the terms and conditions of use of this case provide that "this terms and conditions of this case shall aim at providing basic matters concerning the use of the Internet-based MFPG provided by the defendant company between the user of the Internet game and the company." The terms and conditions of use provide that "this contract shall be made for the purpose of stipulating the basic matters concerning the use of the Internet-based service between the user and the company" in Article 5 (Usage. 4) that "the user shall consent to the use of the Internet-based game service and it shall not be concluded by the company for the confirmation of the real name of the user and the content of the application." On the other hand, the company shall not be obliged to provide the user's real name information or to obtain the approval of the user's real name in relation to the act of approval of the defendant company."

However, even if all the circumstances, such as the purpose, subject of application, the literary meaning of Article 7, the application of the game service of this case in the same or similar entity of the terms of use, the status of the application in the same or similar entity of the terms of use, and the procedure for online member joining the game service of this case recognized earlier, it is difficult to interpret that Article 7 contains the relevant provisions of the terms of use of this case, in particular, the purport that Article 7 contains the obligation to confirm the applicant who is in conformity with the real name information in the process of approving the application

Rather, in light of the above circumstances, Article 7, etc. of the Terms and Conditions of Use of this case provides that if the defendant company receives an application for online member registration of the game service of this case, it may only approve the application by stating his real name information (this is confirmed through the real name verification system adopted by the defendant company) and if the defendant company uses another person's name or makes an application for use not based on real name information, it may not approve the application. In conclusion, it is nothing more than the purport that the defendant company has the authority to refuse approval of the application where it finds that it is an application for use not based on the identity theft or real name information in the course of receiving the application for member registration, and therefore, the terms and conditions of use of this case shall be interpreted as the provisions that stipulate that the applicant who is the other party to the game of this case shall have the authority to call attention to the application for use based on his real name information in the course of receiving the application for member registration, and at the same time imposes obligations related thereto, and where it violates this, it may be disadvantaged in the contractual relationship.

(B) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that is premised on the defendant company's obligation to verify himself in online membership procedure is without merit under the relevant terms and conditions, such as Article 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Use.

(2) Whether legal grounds exist

(A) Article 3 (Duties of Providers of Information and Communications Services and Users) of the Information and Communications Network Act provides, “(1) The provider of information and communications services shall contribute to protecting the rights and interests of users and improving the ability of users to use information by protecting personal information of users and providing sound and safe information and communications services.” Article 22 (Consent, etc. to Collection and Use of Personal Information) provides, “(1) When collecting user’s personal information, the provider of information and communications services shall inform the users of all of the following matters and obtain their consent. The same shall also apply when intending to modify any of the following matters.”

However, Article 1 (Purpose) of the Information and Communications Network Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to promote the use of personal information by the users of information and communications services and to create an environment in which such users can use such information and communications networks in a sound and safe manner.” Article 2 (Definition) provides that “the provider of information and communications services” means a person who provides or arranges the provision of information through telecommunications services with a telecommunications business operator pursuant to Article 2 (1) 1 of the Telecommunications Business Act for profit-making purposes.” The term “user” refers to a person who uses information and communications services provided by the provider of information and communications services.” The Ministry of Information and Communications [the Personal Information Protection Guidelines] provides that “The consent pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) is difficult to obtain from the users of information and communications services under the premise that the user’s personal information is subject to the disclosure of personal information under the premise that the user’s real name and the user’s personal information should not be subject to the provision of personal information and communications services under the premise that the user’s consent should be obtained from the user’s online information and communications networks.”

(B) Therefore, there is no reason for the Plaintiffs’ assertion premised on the Defendant Company’s obligation to verify in online membership registration procedures under the current laws and regulations and the instant information security policies.

(3) Whether there are grounds for cooking

(A) Unlike other computer games for which the number of users of the game item was determined by their strategic choice and determination, and capacity of manipulation, etc., and which are subject to restriction on the number of hours, the game of this case is determined depending on the size and contents of items accumulated, and the game of this case is established to allow the exchange or transaction of items between some users of the game, by disregarding the normal progress of the game, and accumulating only the game of this case to be legally favorable, for the purpose of using the online information of this case's online service provider's real name verification by using the same as that of the online service provider's real name verification method, or by using the same as that of the online service provider's real name verification method, for the purpose of using the online service provider's real name verification information of this case's 3rd party or the online service provider's real name verification by using the same as that of the online service provider's real name verification method, the game of this case seems to have been used by the broker of this case's 3rd party information without charge.

Rather, comprehensively considering the above facts, ① it is difficult to view that the game service of this case per se includes special public interest requests to enable the Defendant Company, the operating entity, to verify the identity of the applicant in order to protect the benefit of potential victims of personal information, such as the victim of the identity theft in the course of operation, or includes anti-social and speculative matters that can be socially regulated from the above point of view. ② It is hard to view that the occurrence of items transaction outside the game of this case using the character that can be exchanged or traded within the game of this case, and large-scale use of the free account use for the purpose of transaction outside the game of this case for 3 days free account, is merely an excessive desire for some users to win the game of this case, and even if it appears that the defendant company's act of identity theft is not a direct and exceptional reason for the illegal use of the personal information of this case by using the real name of the victim of this case, and it appears that the defendant company's act of identity theft in this case can only be viewed as a deviation and exceptional situation from the plaintiffs' improper use of personal information of this case.

(B) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant company is obliged to confirm himself in the online membership procedure is without merit.

D. Whether the defendant company's act of false name theft has been implicitly or negligently committed by intention or negligence

(1) Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aided or an assistant shall be deemed a collaborative act, and imposes liability on an aided or an assistant as a joint tortfeasor. Aiding or abetting refers to all direct or indirect acts facilitating a tort, and includes not only cases of commission but also cases of facilitating the commission of a tortfeasor due to omission by a person liable to act, who does not take all measures to prevent it. Aiding or abetting such tort shall be able to assist by negligence as an interpretation of the Civil Act that indicates negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, unlike the Criminal Act. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that the aided or the aided or the aided or the aided or the aided has a duty of care to avoid aiding or abetting a tort, and there is a proximate causal relation between aiding and abetting and the aided or abetting's tort (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da31264, Dec. 23, 1998, etc.).

(2) In accordance with such legal principles, the assertion that the Defendant Company assisted and abetted the use of the name of this case in relation to the game of this case, which was attached to the game of this case by the Defendant Company at the time of the occurrence of the use of name of this case, by intentionally promoting, implied, or neglecting the use of name of this case in relation to the item transaction of this case, is insufficient to recognize the identity of each of the items No. 28, No. 29, No. 1, No. 32, No. 33, No. 29, and No. 52, in light of each of the items of No. 25, No. 26, No. 1, No. 29, No. 32, and No. 52

(3) Next, as to whether the defendant company fulfilled its duty of care not to assist in the act of identity theft by preventing users from joining or using the game service of this case by stealing the name of the game service, the defendant company has a duty of care not to assist in the act of identity theft by taking appropriate measures to block the use of the game service of this case where the defendant company could have known that there were users of this case's game service by stealing the name among applicants and users and users, but it is reasonable to see that the defendant company has a duty of care not to assist in the act of identity theft by taking appropriate measures to block the use of the game service of this case. However, from the perspective of the service provider, it is not easy for the service provider to individually grasp the actual situation of the use of the service of this case from time to time through the Internet and to identify whether the game service of this case is membership or use by the identity theft among them. Considering the fact that the defendant company's duty of due care should not be seen as the highest level to prevent the identity of this case in any case, and it should not be determined as the technical nature of the online game service provider's.

According to the evidence mentioned above and evidence evidence Nos. 17 through 21, and evidence Nos. 17 through 3 and 4, it refers to an automatic hunting program (referring to a special program for the purpose of automatically operating character and repeatedly performing the work of acquiring an item, even if the user does not directly operate the character within the game) called “BOT” after accessing the game service of this case with stolen names at the place of work, or an automatic advertising program (referring to an automatic advertisement of 1) such as “NOVA” and “a e-mail channel” that is used in the same type of online service by using the same type of computer server or 1, where the user does not directly operate the character through e-mail, etc., e-mail access or 1). It is meaningful that an automatic advertising program (referring to an automatic advertisement of e-mail access or 1, other than a certain space within the game of this case) is operated by using the same type of computer server or 1, and where the user engages in automatic advertising of the same type of online service.

However, each of the above evidence, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 8 to 10, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 26, evidence No. 26, and witness testimony and pleading of the Non-Party, which were used in the above-mentioned online game service for the purpose of preventing the use of the above-mentioned game fraud. It seems that the case of acquiring items mainly from another person's account by means of hacking or accounting methods was the first case in which the online member's identity theft can be prevented. It is also difficult to find that the defendant company's act of using the above-mentioned game fraud by introducing the above-mentioned game information No. 20, which is hard to identify the user's identity theft from the beginning of the game service of this case to the point of view that it is hard to recognize the user's identity theft by using the above-mentioned game information of this case. It is also reasonable to see that the defendant company's act of using the game information of this case can be seen as using the current account no longer than 20 years from the point of time to the user's identity.

(4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant company violated the duty of care not to assist in the act of identity theft by intention or negligence is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed without any further need to be determined on the occurrence of damages.

Judges Kim Woo-young (Presiding Judge)