beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 110,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 20, 2014 to September 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Defendant, on August 18, 2014, submitted necessary documents, such as a lease contract, a certified copy and abstract of resident registration cards, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of tax payment, certificate of income, etc., stating that he/she leases “Seoul, Eunpyeong-gu, and 502 parcels 5,000 won for the entire lease deposit from D, the owner of which is “Seoul, and 502,000 won for the entire lease deposit.” The Defendant directly submitted the Plaintiff (the former E-credit union; the same shall apply
(2) On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the loan of the deposit money to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant by performing the loan of KRW 110,000,000 to the Defendant with the belief that the said deposit contract was genuine.
3) However, in fact, the above lease contract was prepared falsely, and the defendant did not intend to use the loan from the plaintiff as the lease deposit even if it was not leased the house specified in the contract. 4) The above lease loan was concluded as a result of an invitation to divide the loan by preparing an internal document as if the application for each loan was made normally by preparing the internal document as if the application for each loan was made by the false lessee, who was led by F(Chief), G(general), etc., who is an employee of the plaintiff, and the defendant et al., who will be able to take charge of the loan from the plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including the branch number), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The establishment of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, which causes damage to another person by multiple persons, does not require a public invitation or a joint perception among the actors. A joint tort is established when the act is objectively related to the act, which is sufficient if the act is jointly related, and when the damage was incurred by the pertinent joint act, which is liable to compensate for it.
Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181 Delivered on May 8, 2001.