1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

[2] The joint tort under the Civil Act is established when a person causes damage to another person by an objectively related joint act. It does not require not only mutual conspiracy among the actors but also common intent or common recognition among the actors.

In addition, joint action can be recognized in cases where a tort itself is jointly committed or an aid and abetting is provided.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da31137 Decided April 12, 2016). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant convicted the Plaintiff of the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s account deposit of KRW 750 million in the said Notarial Deed, including D’s account number for the Plaintiff’s debt, and the attachment of its account number for the Plaintiff’s debt, from January 10, 2014 to April 30, 2015, based on the overall purport of the pleadings in the first instance trial D’s testimony (part) and the Defendant’s account deposit of KRW 30,000 in his/her account under the name of the Defendant: (a) Cheongju District Court, on January 17, 2017, found D’s account deposit of KRW 30,000 to 20,000,0000 in its account; (b) 30,016,000 won to 20,015.