beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 105,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 21, 2014 to August 29, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Defendant directly submitted necessary documents, such as a lease contract, a certified copy and abstract of resident registration cards, a certificate of personal seal impression, a certificate of tax payment, certificate of income, etc., stating that he/she leases “Seoul 6th floor C6th class 601” from D, the owner of which in November 18, 2014, KRW 140,000,00 of the lease deposit, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter the same shall apply).
(2) On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a loan of the deposit money to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant by performing a loan of KRW 105,000,000 to the Defendant with belief that the said deposit contract was genuine.
3) However, the above lease contract was prepared falsely, and the defendant did not intend to use the loan from the plaintiff as the lease deposit even if it did not lease the house specified in the contract. 4) The above lease loan was made by inviting the nominal lender who will be carried out by the defendant et al. through the defendant et al. through the bromoer, such as the whole world, and as the case where each request for the loan was made normally by preparing the internal document as if the request for the loan was made normally, and the loan was made by inviting the president of the plaintiff to have divided the loan.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The establishment of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, which causes damage to another person by multiple persons, does not require a public invitation or a joint perception among the actors. A joint tort is established when the act is objectively related to the act, which is sufficient if the act is jointly related, and when the damage was incurred by the pertinent joint act, which is liable to compensate for it.
Supreme Court Decision 201. 201