1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the allegations made by the Plaintiff in this court under Paragraph (2) above, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part against the Defendants. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text

2. In order to be held liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting another person’s tort, a proximate causal relation shall be acknowledged between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by the victim’s tort. In determining whether a proximate causal relation exists, caution shall be exercised so as to avoid excessively expanding the liability, comprehensively taking into account the possibility of predictability of the circumstances that facilitate the relevant tort due to an negligent act, as well as the impact of the negligent act on the occurrence of damages, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim’s trust, and the degree of contribution to the victim’

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da223067 Decided October 25, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da223067, Oct. 25, 2018). The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C is liable for joint tort by aiding and abetting pursuant to Article 760(3) of the Civil Act, since it was easy for the Plaintiff to notify the details of the documents regarding the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the course of performing its business as Defendant D’s performance assistant, which are different from the actual sales contract, while having known the existence of a senior lessee

However, if a loan contract has already been concluded in a situation where the loan is not executed according to the discretionary decision of a financial institution notwithstanding the existence of senior rights, the defendant C is highly likely to say that the plaintiff has decided to implement the loan in consideration of senior lessee.