beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around September 2013, a person under whose name the account holder sent a deposit passbook, etc. to the Defendant and asked him/her to get a loan if he/she became aware of his/her account password, and the Defendant, who was named in his/her name, opened a credit cooperative deposit passbook (Account Number C) and a cash card and a password information.
B. On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) received a call from a person who misrepresented himself/herself to “a safe account informing him/her of the deposit in the Plaintiff’s account due to fraudulent use of the Plaintiff’s name; and (b) transferred KRW 6,00,000 to the above community credit cooperative account in the Defendant’s name, which the said person under the name of the Defendant instructed to do so.”
C. On September 16, 2013, the person who was unaware of the name had withdrawn KRW 5,994,200 in total from the account of the above community credit cooperatives under the name of the defendant six times, and acquired it by fraud.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings
2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;
A. In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, several persons who jointly inflict damages on another person, joint tort is not necessarily required, and if there is an objective act related to the objective act, joint tort is established which is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the act in relation to the objective act.
In addition, aiding and abetting in a joint tort refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate a tort, and the interpretation of the Civil Act, unlike the Criminal Act, which recognizes negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, is able to assist by negligence. In this case, the content of negligence refers to the violation of this duty on the premise that it has a duty of care not to assist a tort.
Supreme Court Decision 23 April 23, 2009