logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2017.04.27 2017나20329
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where “Defendant D” is deemed to be “Defendant” and “Defendant C” to be “Codefendant C of the first instance trial,” and thus, it is identical to that of the first instance judgment.

The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion was introduced to the plaintiffs by introducing Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter "C"), and actively recommended investments. Accordingly, most of the plaintiffs' investments made to C were paid to the defendant via C. Thus, the defendant is a substantial transaction party and has a duty under the good faith principle to notify the plaintiffs of the fraud crime.

However, around May 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) informed the Plaintiffs of the crime of fraud, thereby aiding and abetting C’s tort by failing to notify the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, as a joint tortfeasor, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the amount remitted to C after May 27, 2015.

(Plaintiffs asserted in the first instance trial that the Defendant conspiredd to commit a crime with C or aided by commission, but this Court changed the above argument. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aided person or aided person shall be deemed a collaborative act, thereby holding the aided person liable to commit a joint act. The aided and abetting refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate a tort. It includes not only cases by commission, but also cases where the act of commission is facilitated due to omission by a person liable to act, who does not take various measures to prevent it.

Here, the duty to act is a legal obligation, so it does not include a simple moral or religious obligation, but it is a legal obligation, so long as the duty to act is a legal obligation.

arrow