The Defendants jointly share KRW 18,350,00 for Plaintiff A, KRW 6,620,00 for Plaintiff B, and KRW 8,450,00 for Plaintiff C, and the above amount.

1. Case summary and judgment

A. Even if a civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, unless there is a special circumstance where it is difficult to

(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997, 94Da39215 delivered on January 12, 1995, etc.). Moreover, the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission prohibits a person without public confidence from engaging in the act of fund-raising and criminal punishment for the act of violating it is aimed at preventing damage to a third party who disturbs financial order and trades by inducing a person without public confidence to engage in fund-raising by an unspecified number of unspecified persons. Thus, the act of fund-raising without permission is subject to criminal punishment, and if the risk inherent therein is realized and damage to the other party occurs, it constitutes a civil tort.

Even if an entity that received money without permission is aware that it does not fulfill its duty to return money agreed upon, and was not attracting investment money, if the entity without permission was involved in the act of receiving money without due knowledge of the risk and deception of the act of receiving money without permission, it cannot be exempted from liability for damages incurred by the victim arising from the said transaction.

On the other hand, in the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act which causes damage to another person jointly, it does not require the awareness of the joint tortfeasor as well as the conspiracy among the actors. However, if the joint act is related objectively, it is sufficient that the joint act is related, and it is liable to compensate for it by causing damage due to the related joint act.