1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On the plaintiff's ancillary claim added at the trial, the defendant will be the first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 12 to No. 35 of the judgment of the court of first instance) except where the part of the “Defendant C” in the second to 13, No. 16, and No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed to “C”. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, in collaboration with C, received money from the Plaintiff in relation to the construction of the E-Ground apartment house in Ulsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant construction”), but did not have the intent or ability to pay the Plaintiff investments and earnings or sell the two households of the said apartment house. However, if the Plaintiff invests KRW 200,00,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant made a false statement that the Plaintiff would pay the principal of the investment and earnings or sell the said two households of the said apartment house to the Plaintiff. As recognized earlier by the Plaintiff, the Defendant committed an illegal act of receiving KRW 138,00,000 in total from the account in the name of the Defendant, etc. as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay C and each plaintiff the above KRW 138,000,000.

B. Determination 1) In order to establish a joint tort, there is no need for the common intent or joint perception among the actors. However, it should be deemed that each actor’s intentional or negligent act was jointly committed, and thus, it should be deemed that there was a common cause for infringement of rights and damages to the victims. Thus, in order to recognize liability for damages on the ground of a joint tort, it should be clearly stated that each actor’s intentional or negligent act was jointly committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da101824, Dec. 9, 2010).2) On the basis of the foregoing legal doctrine, health class, even though the Plaintiff was related to the instant construction project.