beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant C’s KRW 5,971,50 and its related amount are 5% per annum from April 11, 2014 to September 3, 2015.
Reasons
1. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff received a telephone from an unqualified person who misrepresented the inspection, and accordingly, remitted the same money as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article to each of the accounts in the name of the Defendants from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendants.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants could be used for the so-called phishing crime, but transferred the account under one’s name to the person who was unaware of his name, or made it easier for the Defendant to commit the financial fraud of the person who was unaware of his name by allowing the person who was unaware of name due to negligence to open the passbook under the name of the Defendant. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages as joint tortfeasor under
3. Judgment by public notice of claims against Defendant C and E (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
4. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act on the claim against Defendant B, D, F, G, and H stipulates that the aiding and abetting person in a tort shall be deemed a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aiding and abetting person.
Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort. Aiding and abetting by negligence is possible in the area of civil law in which negligence is the same as that of an intentional act, in principle, for the purpose of compensating for damages. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist a tort.
However, in order to hold another person liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting, a proximate causal relation should be acknowledged between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damage by the victim by the tort, and when determining whether a proximate causal relation exists, the predictability of the circumstances that facilitate the tort caused by the negligence and the negligent act.