1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are asserted.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to a claim for damages caused by a tort

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) Although the defendant knew that he/she had no intention or ability to establish a large pharmacy, he/she made a false statement about the status of E's property or the progress of the establishment of a pharmacy. Since the plaintiffs' deceptions by the defendant, the defendant remitted the investment funds of this case, the defendant has encouraged or aided the fraudulent conduct of E, and the defendant has intentionally participated in the fraudulent conduct of E from the time when the plaintiffs renounced their pharmacy establishment and demanded the return of the investment funds of this case. The defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiff A 1.158,50,000,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff Eul due to the tort. 2) The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion was not doubtful or foreseeable about the fraudulent conduct of E, and therefore there was no negligence by intention or violation of duty of care concerning the fraudulent conduct.

B. Determination 1 as to the occurrence of liability for damages does not require a common perception among the actors in order to establish a joint tort. However, it should be deemed that each actor committed a joint act based on his/her intent or negligence in an objective view, and thus, it should be deemed that there was a common cause for infringement of rights and damages to the victim. Thus, in order to recognize liability for damages on the ground of a joint tort, it should be clearly stated that each actor committed a joint act based on his/her intent or negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da101824, Dec. 9, 2010). Meanwhile, Article 760(3) of the Civil Act considers the aiding and abetting of the tort as a joint act.