1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, Defendant C, KRW 3,586,200, and each of the above amounts, respectively, from October 14, 2013 to October 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff was committed a telephone financial fraud crime of transferring KRW 10,415,000 in total to each post office account (D, E) under Defendant B’s name, agricultural cooperative account (F), KRW 5,981,00 in Defendant C’s name, and KRW 5,973,00 in Defendant C’s post office account (G), each of which was transferred to 11,954,000 (the aggregate of the money deposited in the C’s name) from a single group who assumes the position of the staff of the public prosecutor’s office.

B. Most of the money remitted to each of the above accounts in the name of the Defendants are immediately withdrawn, and the current balance of each of the above accounts is only KRW 0 to KRW 2.

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 6, the Nonghyup Bank of this Court, and the Korea Post's order to submit each financial transaction information to Korea Post, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the Incheon Northern Northern Police Station of this Court, the purport of all pleadings

2. The Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted that they could use the act of fraud to commit the crime, but aided and abetted the crime by providing their account and means of access in their names. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount transferred to each Defendants’ account in their respective names.

3. Determination

A. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aiding and abetting a tort shall be deemed a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aiding and abetting person.

Aiding and abetting refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort, and it is possible to assist by negligence 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 such cases, 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, another person.