logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.01.17 2016나711
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. On April 10, 2010, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) by deceiving D on April 10, 2010; (b) borrowed KRW 19.5 million from D; and (c) as above, the Defendant conspired with C to allow C to use its passbook, thereby causing damage to D in an amount equivalent to KRW 19.5 million.

D is deemed to have acquired the damage claim based on the tort against the defendant, and the plaintiff acquired the above claim from D. The defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 19.5 million and the damages for delay due to the tort.

(However, as seen in the purport of the above appeal, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied only with 7.5 million won and damages for delay. 2. Whether the Defendant is liable for tort or not

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

Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort, and it is also possible to assist by negligence in the area of civil law where negligence is the same as intention in principle for the purpose of compensating for damages.

However, in order to impose liability on a aiding and abettinger as a joint tortfeasor, there is a proximate causal relation between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages, and for this purpose, it is necessary to predict the situation that the negligent act is easy to commit the tort in detail.

Since the purpose of using an electronic financial transaction or the content of an individual transaction through such transaction is diverse, where an electronic financial transaction is conducted through another person’s means of access, it shall not be deemed that the legal effect under the said electronic financial transaction is borne by the nominal holder, but it constitutes tort by negligence on the ground that the individual transaction via such electronic financial transaction constitutes

arrow