beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 57,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 11, 2012 to January 21, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. Indication of claims: as shown in the annexed sheet of "the grounds for the modified claims"
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was deceiving Defendant B, who was introduced by Defendant C, as if he could have been appointed as a professor of D University; and (b) the Plaintiff was appointed as a professor of D University; and (c) the Plaintiff was paid for the appointment of professor on April 20, 2012 to Defendant B.
5. On November 5, 11, 500,000 won was delivered, and the above money was acquired by deception. Since Defendant C was aware of the conviction against Defendant B, Defendant C provided money to Defendant B, Defendant C was also aware of the cost necessary for the appointment of professor presented by Defendant B, Defendant C was in a position not to gather the fact that it cannot be actually appointed as professor by the method presented by Defendant B, and Defendant C was in a position not to be able to gather the fact that the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant B for fraud, even if the Plaintiff intended to file a complaint against Defendant B, Defendant C had been negligent or aided by neglecting the proposal and neglecting it, even if it was sufficiently known that it could constitute fraud. Accordingly, Defendant C claimed that Defendant B was jointly and severally liable for tort with Defendant B, and Defendant C was liable for deposit and payment of KRW 47 million to the Plaintiff due to fraud, etc., Defendant B had the obligation to deposit and pay damages to the Plaintiff.
B. The lower court introduced Defendant C to the Plaintiff, even though it was sufficiently known that the Defendant C’s proposal against the Plaintiff could constitute fraud by itself, on the sole basis of each of the descriptions of the Plaintiff, A, 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
or aiding and abetting Defendant B’s frauds against the Plaintiff.