[1] The meaning of aiding and abetting under Article 760(3) of the Civil Code, and whether aiding and abetting tort by negligence (affirmative)

[2] Details of the duty of management and supervision of employees and visitors borne by the head of a securities company

[3] The case holding that since there is a proximate causal relation between the act of the head of a securities company neglected to be referred to as the "head of a office" while providing an office to a person who is merely a customer and the illegal act of deceiving the investment fund to be an employee of the above branch, and the damage suffered by the customer, the liability for aiding and abetting the securities company

[1] Article 760(3) of the Civil Code provides that an aided or an assistant shall be deemed a collaborative act, and imposes liability on an aided or an assistant as a joint tortfeasor. Aiding or abetting refers to all direct or indirect acts facilitating a tort, and includes not only a case of commission but also a case of facilitating the commission of a tortfeasor due to omission by a person liable to act, who does not take all measures to prevent it, and interpretation of the Civil Code, which indicates negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, unlike the Criminal Code, can aid and abetting a tort by negligence. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that the aided or assistant has a duty of care not to assist a tort, and there is a proximate causal relation between aiding and abetting and the tort of the aided or abetting person.

[2] In the case of a securities company which mainly carries out business affairs related to the sale and purchase, consignment sale, brokerage or agency of securities, the branch office has a duty to manage and supervise its employees and guest rooms as much as the principal business is carried out through consultation between the customers and employees who visited the guest house, and also includes a duty of care to prevent illegal acts caused by illegal securities transaction that may be mistaken for the business affairs of the branch office within the guest house.

[3] The case holding that since there is a proximate causal relation between the act of the head of a securities company neglected to be referred to as the "head of a office" while providing an office to a person who is merely a customer, and the act of the head of a securities company by deceiving the customer as an employee of the above branch and the illegal act of deceiving the investment money to the customer

[1] Article 760 (3) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 750, 756, and 760 (3) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da33975 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1177) Supreme Court Decision 98Da31264 delivered on December 23, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 222)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Han-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na72534 delivered on August 25, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aided person or an assistant shall be deemed a collaborative act, thereby imposing liability as a joint tortfeasor on an aided person or an assistant. Aiding and abetting refers to all direct or indirect acts facilitating a tort, and includes not only a case of commission but also a case of facilitating the commission of a tortfeasor due to omission by which a person liable to act does not take all measures to prevent it. Unlike the Criminal Act, the interpretation of the Civil Act where the negligence is deemed as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, unlike the Criminal Act, it is possible to assist and abetting a tort by negligence. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that the aided person has a duty of care not to assist a tort. In order to impose liability on the aided person as a joint tortfeasor, there is a proximate causal relation between the aiding and abetting act and the tort by the aided person (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da31264, Dec. 23, 199).

In addition, in the case of a securities company which is performing business related to the sale and purchase, consignment sale, brokerage or agency of securities, its principal business is obligated to manage and supervise its employees and guest rooms as much as the principal business is conducted through consultation between the customers and employees visiting the guest rooms, and it also includes the duty of care to prevent illegal acts from being committed due to illegal securities transaction that may be mistaken for the business of the branch in the guest place.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by the court below, and found that there was a proximate causal relationship between the damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the damages caused by the tort by deceiving them as an employee in the position of the head of the defendant's main office by deceiving them as an employee of the "head of the defendant's main office" in the above office, and providing the non-party with an office that can be exclusively used by the head of the defendant's main office with his personal secret, which is only a customer, and neglecting the defendant's employees to name the non-party as an "head" as it is is, and therefore, it is justifiable in the judgment of the court below that recognized the employer's liability for aiding and abetting the defendant's negligence on the ground that there was a proximate causal relationship between the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort by deceiving them as an employee of the "head of the office of the defendant's main office," and there is no error in the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)