beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff paid approximately KRW 60 million to C from January 2014 to March 2014 under the pretext of investment in E in the window D of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “the instant bank”), and the Defendant is a business title of the instant bank.
B. On March 11, 2014, C paid KRW 2,370,00 to the Plaintiff for the purpose of allocating earnings, but thereafter, C did not contact the Plaintiff.
C. Accordingly, on August 2014, the Plaintiff told the Defendant of the phone call and received fraud from C, and the Defendant disposed of the instant bank room to F around August 2014, around approximately two weeks thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion is the actual business owner of the target bank of this case, and the defendant is merely the business owner in the name of the defendant. In light of the fact that the defendant is pro-friendly with C and the defendant did not take an action against the defendant without the cooperation of C, the defendant is jointly with C and is liable as a joint tortfeasor since he acquired the amount equivalent to KRW 60 million from the plaintiff, and even if not, he is liable as a joint tortfeasor. Thus, the defendant is liable for aiding and abetting because he was made a prompt disposition of the target bank of this case and made it easy to commit the illegal act of C by disposing of it immediately.
B. 1) Determination 1) The issue of whether liability is established under Article 760(1) of the Civil Act, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant conspireds with C that the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s investment money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. 2) Whether liability is established under Article 760(3) of the Civil Act, and aid and abetting in the joint tort where liability arises, refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the tort, which is different from the Criminal Act.