beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the establishment of joint tort liability due to aiding and abetting negligence
A. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act considers an aided person to be a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aided person.
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 in which negligence is the same as intention in principle for the purpose of compensating for damages.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da91597, Mar. 27, 2014). However, in order to impose liability on an aided and abetting person 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 specifically anticipate the circumstances that the negligent act is easy.
Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits, in principle, the transfer of a means of access in electronic financial transactions, such as an electronic card or password, such as a cash card, and provides a provision punishing the violation.
This is a system to prevent a transparent transaction by making an electronic financial transaction in the name of the account holder and another person, and there is a need to punish such transaction in order to ensure the stability and trust of the electronic financial transaction. However, since the purpose of using the electronic financial transaction or the content of individual transaction made through such means of access in the name of another person is different, in the event an electronic financial transaction is conducted through another person’s means of access, it is beyond the burden of the account holder on the legal effect of the electronic financial transaction, to impose liability for aiding and abetting negligence on the nominal holder on the ground that the transaction constitutes