1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the determination of the newly disputed part as to the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiffs, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs

A. The Defendants alleged that they were aware of the deception by Codefendant I (hereinafter “I”) in the first instance trial if they paid little amount of money. However, they did not look at whether I intended to purchase a vehicle or had the ability to pay a reasonable amount of fees given to the Defendants, but did not directly confirm the fact that I would itself be impossible to realize the purchase of a vehicle at a half-value, and they committed a tort by processing I’s act (aided by negligence) by delivering it to the Plaintiffs, and thus, they should compensate the Plaintiffs for damages therefrom.

B. (1) Article 760(3) of the Civil Act regards an aided person as a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aided person.

Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort. Aiding and abetting by negligence is possible in the area of civil law in which negligence is the same as that of an intentional act, in principle, for the purpose of compensating for damages. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist a tort.

However, in order to hold another person liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting, a proximate causal relationship between aiding and abetting act and the victim's damages should be recognized, and when determining a proximate causal relationship, the tort shall be easy due to the negligent act.