In the case of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2019Garo25659 returned unjust enrichment.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiff decided to act on behalf of the winners of the name cards, notified his account number to the winners of the name cards, and sent KRW 15,000,000 from the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff deemed that the Plaintiff was a customer of the purchase of the name cards, and delivered KRW 9,983,775 to the Gad Gad who was introduced by the winners of the name cards. The above KRW 15,00,000,000 to the Defendant was deposited in the Defendant’s crime of Bohishing.

B. On September 25, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 15,000,000 (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2019 Ghana2569), and the decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) was issued on October 30, 2019, and the said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on November 16, 2019.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant received KRW 7,512,168, out of the money remaining in the Plaintiff’s account on October 4, 2019, as a refund for loss.

On October 14, 2019, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition of suspension of prosecution to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff was in violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9 through 12 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff did not bear tort liability against the Defendant, compulsory execution based on the instant decision on performance recommendation should be denied.

B. Inasmuch as the Defendant refunded KRW 7,512,168 out of KRW 15,00,000, which was remitted to the Plaintiff’s account, the Defendant shall pay KRW 7,487,832, which is the difference, to the Defendant as compensation for damages caused by tort.

3. Determination

A. We examine the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim together.

B. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act regards a aiding and abetting a tort as a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aiding and abetting person.