207 Ghana23292 Damage (as referred to in this paragraph)

Essung simuls

Representative City, the last place of the

Attorney Lee Do-young

1. Norway* (51 - 1)

2. New* (63 - 1)

3. this** (45 - 1)

4. Kim* (49 - 1)

April 3, 2008

May 1, 2008

1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant Union** 44, 310, 000 won;

B. Defendant New **, this**, Kim ** Defendant Nowon-gu**, the two parts of the money listed in the above paragraph A are jointly and severally with the above paragraph ** 27,276,00 of the money listed in the above paragraph A, and 5% per annum from March 30, 2007 to May 1, 2008, and full completion from the following day.

By the second day, money shall be paid at each rate of 20% per annum.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Trade Union* The Plaintiff and the Defendant Trade Union*, the Plaintiff and the Defendant New *, this*, this**, Kim* * The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant* is 40%, and the remainder is each borne by the said Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 45, 460, 000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of the final delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2006, the Plaintiff implemented the 'Seonggu Park Creation Project', which is an urban planning facility project, 'Seonggue Park Creation Project', which is an urban planning facility project, the Plaintiff paid compensation to the owner for the obstacles indicated in the attached list in the attached list in the project site * * the Singue Eup in the project site * pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor.

B. Defendant Nowon-gu* * owned only 3 containers out of the obstacles indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter the obstacles of this case) as at September 7, 2007, and the remainder of obstacles did not own their own ownership. Furthermore, with respect to the housing and tent (ware) out of the obstacles of this case, around 2005, the Plaintiff was already paid KRW 37,969,00 as a title of compensation for obstacles around January 2006, due to the urban planning project of salary-gu (ro 2-11) that was implemented by the Plaintiff, around the 15th of the same month, he concealed this fact while he was already paid KRW 37,969,00 as a title of compensation for obstacles, and entered into a contract for the transfer of obstacles between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff as a legitimate person, and received KRW 45,460,400 as a sum of compensation for the obstacles of each of the above obstacles.

C. At the request of the Defendant Union**, Defendant Shin *, this*, this** on September 2007, the guardian of the obstacles in the instant case signed and sealed his signature and seal on the records of the articles of incorporation in Defendant Union***, this*, this*, Kim** on November 2007, without checking who is the owner of the obstacles in the instant case on November 1, 2007, each of the above certificates was submitted to the Plaintiff through Defendant Union***, without checking the identity of the owner of the obstacles. The identity of the owner of the said obstacles was unrecoged. If it is proved by falsity, each of the above certificates was submitted to the Plaintiff through Defendant Union**.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 4,4310,00 won and damages for delay as joint tortfeasor (Defendant New *, this*, this**, Kim* as seen below) and the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to compensate for damages for the remainder other than 3,00,000 won and damages for delay.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the obstacles in this case were cancelled to transfer to the former and that this part of the compensation amount would also be returned as unjust enrichment even though the said 3-dong temporary building of the above container is not subject to compensation for losses. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the compensation amount was deceiving as above **, there is no reason for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) Defendant New **, this**, this*, Kim* argues that there was no liability for damages due to the conclusion of a valid guarantee agreement on the part of Defendant Labor Union****, on the part of Defendant Labor Union, on the part of Defendant Labor Union***, on the part of Defendant Labor Union, on the part of Defendant Labor Union***, on the part of Defendant Labor Union**, on the part of Defendant Labor Union*, there was no adequate and effective explanation on the loss security related to the ownership verification.

(1) First of all, Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aided person or aided person shall be deemed a collaborative act, and imposes liability on an aided person as a joint tortfeasor. The aiding and abetting person refers to any direct or indirect act facilitating a tort, and such aiding and abetting is possible by negligence. In such a case, the content of the negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that the aided person has a duty of care not to assist in a legal act (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da31264 delivered on December 23, 1998). The above facts are based on the above facts **** this,*, Kim** without confirming the ownership of the obstacles of this case, and by preparing each of the above confirmation documents, and allowing the aiding and abetting person to use it, and thus, the above part of the defendants' assertion is not reasonable.

2. The above defendants are not the guarantor under the Civil Act, and they are not the guarantor under the Civil Act. Thus, the above defendants' assertion on this part is without merit.

(2) In other words, the Defendants asserted the purport that: (a) the parts corresponding to the above repair and management should be deducted from the amount of damages, as they were managed by repairing and using the neglected facilities for buildings, potable water pipes, and drinking water pipes among the obstacles of this case; and (b) the Plaintiff should be considered in determining the amount of damages due to the Plaintiff’s fault of reliance on only each of the certificates of this case and neglecting the confirmation of the minors of the above obstacles.

1. ① When examining the claim, the part concerning the repair of facilities does not change the right of retention only with such repair, so it is difficult to see that Defendant No. ** has the right to acquire part of the compensation, and the part concerning the management of fish is insufficient to recognize it solely with the descriptions of No. 8-6 and No. 11, and there is no other evidence, and this part of the claim shall not be accepted.

② Examining the argument, Defendant Labor Union** because the person who intentionally committed a tort using the Plaintiff’s care, committed an intentional act, and thus, the argument of offsetting the above Defendant’s negligence is not acceptable. However, in the case of joint illegal act, even if the ratio of negligence against each of the legal actors of the victim’s negligence differs from each other, the victim’s negligence should not be individually evaluated as the negligence against each of the joint tortfeasor, and it should be evaluated as the whole as the negligence against all of them. In this case, it is not permissible for the person who intentionally committed a tort, using the victim’s care, to raise a difference in his liability on the ground of the victim’s care. However, it is contrary to the good faith principle to allow a person who has such reason to assert comparative negligence against the victim’s negligence, and thus, it does not mean that the other illegal actor who did not have such reason, to whom part of the tort occurred, can not easily claim for offsetting the Plaintiff’s negligence as the one who committed the above-mentioned illegal act as the one who committed the above-mentioned illegal act? Even if there is no other negligence * Defendant 295Da.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 30, 2007 to May 1, 2008, which is the date following the final delivery date of the copy of the lawsuit in this case sought by the plaintiff as to the above gold 4,4310,000 won, the defendant ** this *, this *, Kim *, Kim * jointly and severally with the defendant ** 27,276,00 out of the above gold *, and each of the above money as to the above money. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and is dismissed as the remainder of the judgment is without merit.

Judges