[1] Whether aiding and abetting by negligence in the area of civil law is possible (affirmative), and the standard for determining the proximate causal relationship between aiding and abetting by negligence and causing damage

[2] In a case where Gap et al., a licensed real estate agent Eul et al., did not confirm the certified copy of the registry while mediating the purchase of the land shares, and did not notify the auction of the land, the case holding that although aiding and abetting the seller Byung's illegal act by negligence, it cannot be recognized as tort liability of Gap et al. due to aiding

[1] Article 760(3) of the Civil Act imposes joint tort liability on an aiding and abetting person by deeming the aiding and abetting person to be a joint tortfeasor. Aid and abetting refers to all direct and indirect acts facilitating a tort, and includes not only cases of commission but also cases where an omission by a person obligated to act does not take all measures to prevent it, thereby facilitating the commission of a tortfeasor. Aid and abetting by negligence is also possible in the area of civil law where negligence is in principle the same as that of an intentional act in principle for the purpose of compensating for damages. However, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care not to assist a tort, on the premise that the aiding and abetting person has a duty of care not to assist a tort. To impose liability on the aiding and abetting person as a joint tortfeasor, proximate causation between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of the damage by the victim must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the impact of aiding and abetting person caused by negligence on damage, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim's trust, and whether the victim can easily prevent damage on his own.

[2] In a case where Gap et al., a licensed real estate agent Eul et al., did not notify the fact that an auction is being conducted on land because he/she failed to verify the legal relationship or condition of the land, despite the duty of care to verify the legal relationship or condition of the land when mediating for Eul to purchase the land shares, the case holding that even though aiding and abetting the seller Byung's tort by negligence, it is difficult to conclude that Byung et al., as the duty to inform the seller Byung et al of the fact that the auction is in progress on the land, it is difficult to conclude that Byung et

[1] Article 760 (3) of the Civil Code / [2] Article 760 (3) of the Civil Code

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Song Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and six others (Law Firm Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na1510 decided October 30, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act imposes joint tort liability on an aiding and abetting person by deeming the aiding and abetting person to be a joint tortfeasor. Aid and abetting refers to all direct and indirect acts facilitating a tort, including not only cases of commission but also cases of facilitating the commission of a tortfeasor due to omission by which a person obligated to act does not take all measures to prevent it. Aid and abetting by negligence is also possible in the area of civil law where the negligence is in principle the same as that of an intentional act in principle for the purpose of compensating for damages. However, in such a case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care not to assist a tort, on the premise that the person has a duty of care not to assist a tort, and there is a proximate causal relationship between aiding and abetting act and the victim’s damage. Whether proximate causal relationship exists should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the impact of aiding and abetting by negligence on damage, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim’s trust, and whether the victim could have easily prevented damage on his own.

2. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that Defendant 4 cannot be deemed to bear the duty of care on the part of the Plaintiff, and that Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant 1, etc.”), in the case of Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 ( collectively referred to as Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, and Defendant 6), even though the Plaintiff had a duty of care to verify the legal relationship or status of the instant land when mediating the Plaintiff to purchase the instant land, failing to notify the fact that the auction was being conducted due to the failure to verify the legal relationship or status of the instant land in the course of mediating the Plaintiff to purchase the instant land, the seller’s negligent aiding and abetting of the Nonparty’s tort, and as long as Defendant 1, a licensed real estate agent, is not recognized, Defendant 1

① It is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1, etc. is obliged to inform that an auction is in progress on the instant land, and further, to search and confirm whether the Nonparty is a genuine right holder.

② On December 12, 2006, the Plaintiff was offered a proposal to purchase the instant land by Defendant 2, and concluded the instant sales contract on December 14, 2006, 2006, after the mold. It cannot be said that Defendant 1, etc. had sufficient time to confirm the legal relationship with the instant land.

③ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff stated in an investigative agency that there was a dispute between the Nonparty’s inheritors regarding the instant land before the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and that the Plaintiff paid any balance to a certified judicial scrivener staff when paying the Plaintiff’s employees, and that the sales contract was additionally prepared in which the purchase price was additionally paid KRW 1.5 billion in the meaning of a penalty agreement in preparation for a case where the ownership of the instant land was not transferred at the Plaintiff’s request, even though the actual purchase price was KRW 500 million, and that the purchase price of the instant land was at a level of KRW 300,000,000,000 from the market price, the Plaintiff might have concluded the instant sales contract with the knowledge that the decision to commence the sale of the instant land was made prior to

④ Even if the Plaintiff did not know the decision to commence the auction of the instant land at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract or the payment of the remaining amount, the Plaintiff was aware of the commencement of auction on January 12, 2007, which was around the time of applying for a provisional disposition with respect to the instant land. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not dispute the validity of the instant sales contract, request for the return of the purchase price, file a complaint against the Nonparty, etc. until the land was sold in 2009.

⑤ The Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000,000 as an intermediary fee, even though he was aware of the decision to commence the instant land around 2008 or spring around 2009, which was more than a year and six months after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, from the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

B. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by violating the Supreme Court precedents.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)