logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2015.11.03 2014가단8406
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant D, KRW 2,972,300, and Defendant E, KRW 6,935,00, and KRW 6,935,00.

Reasons

1. The part of the claim against the defendant D

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of all pleadings as a result of the response to an order to submit financial transaction information to a community credit cooperative Gap and Nos. 1 and 2 without dispute between the parties or by considering the whole purport of the arguments.

1) On June 5, 2013, Defendant D, at the request of a person without a name to give a loan, sent a cash card in his/her own bank account to the person with a name in distress, and notified his/her account number (F) and the cash card password, etc. on or around June 5, 2013. (2) On or around June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered personal financial information, such as his/her company bank deposit account number (G), account number, resident registration number, and resident registration number, from the above company bank bank deposit account to the above 5,940,000 won.

On June 5, 2013, Defendant D’s cash card and the cash card password known by the above Defendant, the person who was unaware of name was released totaling KRW 5,935,400 on June 6, 2013.

B. In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, one of the persons who jointly inflict damages on another person, the joint tort does not require a common perception as well as a conspiracy among the actors. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint tort, the joint tort is established, which is sufficiently sufficient, and is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the pertinent joint act.

Assistance in joint tort refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates a tort, and it is possible to assist by negligence as an interpretation of the Civil Act that considers negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, unlike the Criminal Act, with the intention of compensating for damages. In this case, the content of negligence.

arrow