beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff received a telephone from a person who assumes a false name from a person who assumes the position of Hyundai Capital, and remitted KRW 3,029,80 to the account of the Korea Standards Bank in the name of the Defendant B, and KRW 4,932,00 to the account of the Korean Bank in the name of the Defendant C, and immediately thereafter, withdrawn all the above money from each account in the name of the Defendants.
[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the court of the first instance, the Korean Standards Dadrid Bank, and the Korean Bank, as a result of each order to submit financial information, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim for damages arising from joint tort
A. The Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted that their bankbooks and cards will be used for the crime of telephone financial fraud, but assist the Defendants to commit the crime by giving them to the persons under whose name they could not be used. As such, the Defendants are obliged to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.
B. (i) 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.
Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort. Aiding and abetting by negligence is possible 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 this case, 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, in order to hold another person liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting, a proximate causal relationship between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by the victim should be recognized, and when determining whether a proximate causal relationship exists, it shall be caused by negligence.