1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, and each of them amounting to KRW 1,500,000,000, respectively, from April 17, 2015 to October 29, 2015.

1. Around March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff received a call from a person who assumes a false name who assumes the position of Hyundai Capital Capital employee to “be given a loan of KRW 50 million when transferring stamp tax and credit guarantee fee.” The Plaintiff transferred KRW 1.96 million to the NAC account of Defendant B, KRW 3 million to Defendant C’s post office account, KRW 5 million to Defendant D’s East Securities Account, KRW 5 million to Defendant D’s East Securities Account, and KRW 3 million to Defendant E’s Agricultural Cooperative Account.

[Based on the recognition] Defendant C: The purport of the entire pleadings and records of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the Confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s intent of the assertion lies in causing damages equivalent to the money remitted to the Defendants as above by deceptioning the Plaintiff, and the Defendants transferred the passbook, which is the means of access prohibited from transfer under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, to the person in default of name, thereby aiding and abetting the Defendants’ tort. As such, the Defendants are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the money remitted to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) Determination 1) As to the existence of liability for damages, in the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act which causes damage to another person jointly by several persons of the legal principles on the premise that the joint tort is established only if the joint tort is not required as well as the joint perception among the actors, and it is objectively related to the joint tort. The joint tort is established by causing

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47014, 47021, 47038, Jan. 26, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, “aided and abetting” under Article 760(3) of the Civil Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort. As such, the interpretation of the Civil Act, the purpose of which is to compensate for damages, unlike the Criminal Act, is to allow aiding and abetting tort by negligence. In this case, the content of negligence is premised on the duty of care not to assist in tort.