1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant BJ, C, and E shall each be the Plaintiff of Defendant K, L, M.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following portions, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Attachment] 8 8, 11 8, 14 13 'jointness' is not permitted for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim's care as follows: (a) it is not permitted for a person who intentionally committed a tort to reduce his responsibility on the ground of the victim's care; (b) it is contrary to the principle of good faith to allow a person who has such reason to assert a comparative negligence to some of the illegal persons; (c) on the ground that it is contrary to the principle of good faith, it does not mean that another illegal person who has no such reason can not assert a comparative negligence.

In addition, it is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim's care to claim a reduction of his/her responsibility on the ground of the victim's negligence. This is because, if such intentional tort constitutes an acquisition act, recognizing the limitation of liability such as offsetting negligence, the perpetrator would ultimately possess profits from the tort and bring about a result contrary to the principles of equity or good faith. Thus, even in cases of intentional tort, if the above result is not caused, the limitation of liability based on the principle of comparative negligence or the principle of equity should be always possible.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da48561, Oct. 14, 2010). Even if a representative body’s intentional tort was committed by a corporation’s own representative body, the victims suffering from tort by itself.