1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 2010, the Defendant opened an agricultural bank account (C) under the name of the Defendant and left the passbook (hereinafter “instant passbook”) and cash card to D.

B. D, an employee of a gas station operated by the Plaintiff, caused damages to the Plaintiff by having the transaction company deposit the gas station price to be deposited into the Plaintiff’s passbook, and by remitting KRW 6.4 million from the Plaintiff’s passbook to the instant passbook, etc.

C. D, during the period of this month on December 13, 2010 and December 14, 2010, deposited a total of 6 million won in the instant passbook, and the Defendant terminated the instant passbook on December 31, 2010.

On September 29, 2014, the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act that the Defendant transferred the instant passbook and cash card to D, the Defendant filed an application for formal trial with the Changwon District Court rendered a summary order of KRW 200,000,000 for a fine of KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000 for the same support on June 4, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed a joint tort in collusion with D and embezzlement of the plaintiff's money by transferring the passbook of this case to D, or predicted that the passbook of this case was used to embezzlement of the plaintiff's money at the time of transferring the passbook of this case to D, and thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused by D and joint tort.

B. In order to establish a joint tort by intent to commit a joint tort by intent, it does not require the common perception of intent or joint perception of act among the actors, but it should be deemed that the act based on each actor’s intent was conducted jointly, and that there was a common cause for infringement of rights and damage to the victim.