Plaintiff 1 and 10675 (Law Firm Kal, Attorneys Park Ba-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

UNP Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Hwang Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 30, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap22338, 2006Gahap38197 decided May 31, 2007

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under one of the following orders for payment shall be revoked, and the defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 200,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. The quoted part

The reasons why a member should explain are as follows, 3-D. part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part, except for the modification as follows.

2. The changed part

D. Whether the defendant company's act of identity theft by intention or negligence has been implicitly or negligently infringed on;

(1) First, the Defendant Company’s assertion that it intentionally promoted, or implied, the identity theft of this case by being committed in connection with the workplace or item broker at the time of the occurrence of this case is difficult to believe in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 28-2, evidence Nos. 30, evidence Nos. 32-2, and evidence Nos. 33-2, and evidence No. 25 and evidence No. 26, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) Next, as to whether the defendant company has committed an intentional and negligent act of identity theft by negligence, aiding and abetting the illegal act in one form of tort refers to all direct and indirect acts facilitating the illegal act. It includes not only the case of commission but also the case of facilitating the illegal act by omission by the person liable to act. Unlike the Criminal Act, the interpretation of the Civil Act, which indicates negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating damages, unlike the Criminal Act, is able to assist by negligence. The contents of negligence refer to the act of aiding and abetting the illegal act as a joint tortfeasor, and it is necessary to have proximate causal relation between the act of aiding and abetting the illegal act and the illegal act of the victim. It is also necessary to grasp whether the defendant company's act of aiding and abetting the illegal act as a joint tortfeasor and the act of using the illegal act as well as the case of facilitating the illegal act by the defendant company from the point of view of the economic nature of the defendant company's unlawful act of using the game of this case, or if it is not possible that the defendant company provided an online game service applicant's service of this case's specific and reasonable act of use of this case.

However, there is no clear evidence that the defendant company knew or could have known that each of the plaintiffs' names was stolen at the time of the occurrence of the fraudulent name theft case, and that it could be avoided. Rather, the defendant company came to know that it was in violation of China's item dealer's transfer of its settlement price to the defendant company, and accordingly, the defendant company was prohibited from using the fraudulent name identity identity verification account through its own analysis, and it is difficult to recognize that it was prohibited from using the fraudulent name verification account by introducing the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 6 and No. 10, No. 19, and No. 26, and the testimony of the non-party witness of the court of first instance, and that it was difficult to recognize the effectiveness of the defendant company's automatic game service from time to time to time in order to prevent the illegal use of the fraudulent name verification program from being carried out by the defendant company from being exposed to the same account's improper use of the fraudulent name verification program. On the other hand, it is difficult to find the game service of this case from time to time to time in order to prevent new access or withdrawal of the defendant's.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant company aided and abetted the identity theft of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so dismissed in all of the plaintiffs' appeals. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hwang Ho-sung(Presiding Judge)