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 stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s compensation should be reduced in light of the following: (a) if the Plaintiff or the Bank exercised due diligence during the loan process, there was negligence by failing to pay due attention, even though it could easily recognize the tort committed by the Defendant and the Bank; (b) the Defendant’s profit accrued from the loan of the instant lease loan is only a part of the amount of damages; and (c) the Defendant is currently under an economic difficult situation.
On the other hand, it is not permissible for a person who intentionally committed an illegal act by taking advantage of the care of the victim to claim a reduction of his liability on the ground of the victim's care immediately. Meanwhile, taking liability for joint illegal acts is not individually seeking damages against each individual's act, but to seek the liability for the joint illegal acts jointly committed by the perpetrator. As such, the scope of liability for damages caused by joint illegal acts is determined by comprehensively evaluating all the acts committed by the tortfeasor in relation to the victim. The amount of liability for damages is determined by each tortfeasor bears the responsibility for the whole amount, and even if the degree of liability is insignificant for the illegal acts committed by one tortfeasor compared to other perpetrator, the scope of liability of the tortfeasor cannot be recognized by limiting the scope of liability to the victim as part of the amount of compensation determined as above.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16550, Dec. 27, 2007). Therefore, the Defendant who intentionally committed an illegal act on the ground of the care of the Plaintiff or the Bank, the injured party, cannot limit the Defendant’s liability.