Relationship between claim infringement by a third party and tort by a third party

Although the claim infringement by a third party may constitute a tort, the claim infringement by a third party does not always constitute a tort, and it should be determined by specifically examining whether the claim infringement by the third party constitutes a tort according to the form of claim infringement.

Park Jin-sap

Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 72Na355 delivered on June 26, 1973

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) by combining the evidence and the entire purport of oral argument, the defendants conspired to obtain the money from the Nonparty and the Nonparty, and (b) the Defendants were liable to compensate the Defendants on the part of the defendants on the grounds that the Defendants suffered damage to the amount of the above recognition amount due to the Defendants’ tort, the Defendants were able to obtain the money from the Nonparty and the Nonparty, and (c) the Plaintiff 8-ma of the lawsuit entrusted to the Plaintiff (the purport of the court below, which was entrusted to the Plaintiff under the Civil Act) with the money of KRW 1,100,000, in the original form, and the Plaintiff got the money from the Defendant and distributed it.

Although the claim infringement by a third party can constitute a tort, the claim infringement by the third party does not always constitute a tort, but it is a matter to be determined by specifically examining whether the claim infringement by the third party is established or not according to the form of claim infringement.

본건의 경우 피고들의 소외 최임락의 돈을 가로챈 사실행위로는 채권자인 원고의 동 소외인에 대한 채권이 소멸된 것이 아니고 소외 최임락의 책임재산이 감소되었을 뿐으로서 원고는 간접적 손해를 본데 불과하므로 불법행위가 성립된다고 하기 어렵다.

However, in other words, if the reduction of general property of the largest acceptance, which is the debtor, due to the defendants' factual act, has occurred, the plaintiff, the creditor, can claim damages against the defendants by subrogation under the subrogation right of the creditor. Thus, the plaintiff, the creditor, can claim damages against the defendants by subrogation of the maximum acceptance of subrogation right of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is correct and it is difficult to conclude that there is a ground for illegality. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)