1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff received a phone call from a person who was unaware of his/her name, stating that “The Plaintiff is a public prosecutor D public prosecutor of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office, and one bank account and agricultural bank account opened under the name of the party is connected with a fraudulent case, and thus another account is connected to another account.”

The name-freeist demanded the Plaintiff to enter false financial transaction information on the website of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and the Plaintiff entered the financial transaction information, such as the account number and password of HMC Investment Securities Account (E) and corporate bank account (F) on the website.

Based on the Plaintiff’s account information, etc. identified as above, the nominally impaired transferred KRW 49 million from the Plaintiff’s HMC Investment Securities Account to Defendant B’s bank account (G) and KRW 6 million from the Plaintiff’s bank account to Defendant C’s community credit cooperatives (H) account, and KRW 3.64 million from the Plaintiff’s bank account to Defendant C’s veterinary cooperation account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor under Article 760(3) of the Civil Act, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, since the Defendants, as joint tortfeasors under Article 760(3) of the Civil Act, are able to facilitate the crime of acquiring money from the Plaintiff by

B. In order to impose liability for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting another person’s tort, a proximate causal relation should be acknowledged between aiding and abetting act and the victim’s damage caused by the tort. In determining whether a proximate causal relation exists, not only the predictability of the circumstances that facilitate the tort caused by negligence, but also the negligent act caused damage.