beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s KRW 5,500,000, Defendant C’s KRW 3,500,000, and Defendant D’s KRW 1,60,000, and each of them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Around May 2014, the Defendants issued a passbook connected to each of the relevant accounts listed in the Defendants’ separate sheet to the name-dissatisfed person at the end, such as “to lend money on the face of a bank or liquor company” from the name-dissatisfed person who misrepresented the employees of the financial company or liquor company.
B. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received a proposal from the above person under the name of the deceased; (b) on June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 11 million to the above account under the name of the defendant B; (c) on June 12, 2014, KRW 7 million to the above account under the name of the defendant C; and (d) KRW 3.2 million to the above account under the name of the defendant D, respectively.
C. However, in order to prevent money deposited in the above account as the holder of the passbook after having the Plaintiff et al. to deposit money in the above account in the name of the Defendants by deceiving the Plaintiff et al. from the beginning, and then to receive the above passbook from the Defendants. At present, the contact with both the Plaintiff and the Defendants was interrupted.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim for damages
A. First of all, according to the above facts of recognition, a person under whose name the victim was named has committed a telephone financial fraud crime against the plaintiff.
Then, we examine whether the defendants' joint tort liability is a joint tort liability.
In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act that causes damage to another person jointly, if one of the persons jointly commits a joint tort without requiring a mutual recognition among the actors, and objectively related to the joint tort, and if the joint tort is established by causing damage to the joint act in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47014, 47021, 47038, Jan. 26, 2006).