beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From 2008 to 2008, the Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in solid trade in accidents involving steel bars, non-ferrouss, special metals, etc. with the trade name of E, and the Defendant is a person in a de facto marital relationship with B-type P.
B. The Defendant consented B to use his own new bank account (N) and NongHyup Bank account (O).
From November 29, 2014 to March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff, respectively, remitted KRW 177,300,000 to the said new bank account, and KRW 201,650,000, in total, from January 20, 2014 to October 1, 2014.
C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, B, and G with the purport that “B, G, and the Defendant, while there was no intention or ability to supply metal, by deceiving the Plaintiff.”
However, on May 20, 2019, the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution disposition against the defendant and G on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant and G had deceiving the plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 6 (including numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion B has committed a tort by deceiving the plaintiff and deceiving the plaintiff's money. The defendant has a duty of care to block the possibility of using his/her financial account to another person by not lending his/her financial account to the other person, and even though he/she had a duty of care not to assist the illegal act, thereby aiding and abetting B to use his/her financial account and thereby aiding and abetting B's illegal act. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to compensate for
B. Under the relevant legal doctrine, a joint tort under the Civil Act is established when multiple persons’ objectively related joint acts cause damage to others. It does not require not only mutual solicitation among the actors, but also a common intent or common perception.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 11, 201