1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance considers “No. 101” as “B01.”

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the cause of a tort 1) In a case where a third party’s act of reducing liability property of an obligor makes it difficult or difficult for the obligee to execute the claim or satisfy the obligee’s act, beyond simply participating in the act of reducing liability’s property, and where the third party actively conspireds with the obligor with the knowledge of the obligee’s existence and infringement of the claim, or uses unlawful means contrary to social norms with the intent to interfere with the exercise of claim, etc., the third party’s act constitutes a tort against the obligee as it constitutes a tort against the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25021, Sept. 6, 2007). In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the Plaintiff, while engaging in tax credit service and credit card business, was an investor against E company, but it was difficult for the Plaintiff to collect damages by lending the Plaintiff’s credit card transaction device with his intent to obstruct the collection of the Plaintiff’s claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an infringement of the obligee’s obligation to compensate for damages.