beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s negligence should be considered as comparative negligence in calculating the amount of damages, on the ground that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to undergo such verification procedures, even though it was possible for the Plaintiff to verify the property status of C by asking the lessor of the store operated by C to recover the lease deposit, etc. at the time of lending KRW 50,000,000 to C, and that the Plaintiff did not take any measures to preserve the claim against C.
However, it is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed an illegal act by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s care to claim a reduction of his/her responsibility on the ground of the Plaintiff’s negligence. This is because, in the event that such intentional illegal act constitutes an acquisition act, the recognition of the limitation of liability such as offsetting negligence would eventually bring about a result contrary to the principles of equity or good faith by having the perpetrator ultimately hold profits from the illegal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16758, 16765, Oct. 25, 2007). In this case, the Defendant intentionally deceiving the Plaintiff and committed an illegal act, and the illegal act constitutes an acquisition act with the main contents of obtaining a loan from the Plaintiff, and therefore, it cannot be recognized as offsetting negligence on the ground of the Plaintiff’s negligence.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.