The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The tort stipulated in Article 750 of the Civil Act is possible not only by a commission, but also by an omission in which the person liable to act does not take all measures to prevent it.

However, since the duty to act is a legal obligation, it does not include a simple moral or religious obligation, but so long as the duty to act is a legal obligation, the basis for the duty to act is neither the law nor the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law, the legal act of the law of the law, and the case where the duty to act is expected under

However, according to the principle of good faith or social rules or sound reasoning, the duty of action is recognized only for those who are deemed in a special position to protect the legal interests of the other party or to prevent infringement of the other party's legal interests, or to control and manage risk factors which may be damaged to the other party, or to control and supervise the other party's act in a position to control and supervise the other party's act, such as where there is a special fiduciary relationship due to a dysical combination relationship, contractual relationship, etc., and it is recognized that there is a responsibility to take measures to prevent harm to the other party's legal interests or to prevent harm to the other party's legal interests, and the duty

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8709, Apr. 26, 2012). Moreover, as a requirement for establishing a tort, intentional negligence, damage, and its causal relationship should be attested by the claimant for the establishment of the tort.

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.

The plaintiff.