1. The Defendant’s KRW 108,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 14, 2014 to October 12, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition C, D, E, etc. conspired with the Plaintiff’s employees F, G to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff by using a false lease contract with the Plaintiff’s employees F, G.

(2) The Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a lease contract on November 12, 2014 with respect to the “Seoul Eunpyeong-gu H No. 304 of the third floor,” as the lessee, and documents necessary for the loan, such as the leaser’s application for the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the

However, the defendant did not have entered into a lease contract with I on the housing above.

F and G have prepared internal documents as if the above loan application was made normally and approved by the Plaintiff president who is not aware of the circumstances.

Accordingly, on November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff misunderstood the Defendant as the genuine lessee, and remitted the amount of KRW 18 million to the Defendant’s account.

The contestants of this case were convicted of the criminal facts by deceiving the plaintiff and deceiving the loan by using a false lease contract submitted by the defendant, etc. as above.

(Seoul Western District Court 2016Gohap132, etc.). [Grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the case of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act which causes damage to another person jointly, the joint tort does not require not only a conspiracy among actors, but also a common perception: Provided, That if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint act, the joint tort is established which is sufficiently sufficient and is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the pertinent joint act;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001). The above facts of recognition are examined.