1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On September 27, 2014, the Plaintiff alleged that he/she was aware of the Plaintiff’s financial information from the crime of so-called “Singing,” which was committed by a person without his/her name, to his/her name, and the person without his/her name, transferred KRW 6 million from the Plaintiff’s SC Bank account to the Defendant’s community credit cooperatives account under the name of the Defendant, using the Plaintiff’s financial information

The defendant, as a joint tortfeasor under Article 760 of the Civil Act, is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor under Article 760 of the Civil Act, since he/she has conspired or aided the above crime of scaming by lending the passbook,

2. Determination:

A. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aiding and abetting a tort shall be deemed a joint tortfeasor and imposes joint tort liability on the aiding and abetting person.

Assistance refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort. Aiding and abetting by negligence is possible in the area of civil law in which negligence is the same as that of an intentional act, in principle, for the purpose of compensating for damages. In this case, the content of negligence refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist a tort.

However, in order to be held liable for joint tort as an negligent aiding and abetting another person’s tort, a proximate causal relationship between the aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by the victim’s tort should be acknowledged. In determining whether a proximate causal relationship exists, the reasonable causal relationship should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the probability of predictability of the circumstances that facilitate the relevant tort by negligence, the impact of the act by negligence on the occurrence of damages, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim’s trust, and the degree of contribution to the victim’s own

Supreme Court Decision 2013Da9157 Decided March 27, 2014