2016 Gohap 55308 Compensation for damages

1. A;

2. B

1. C.

2. D;

September 5, 2018

October 5, 2018:

1. The Defendants shall jointly:

A. From September 30, 2016 to September 30, 2016, Defendant C with respect to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 131,550,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; Defendant D with respect to the amount of money calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. From June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2016, Defendant C shall pay each of the 57,750,000 won to Plaintiff B and the 15% interest per annum from September 30, 2016, Defendant D shall pay each of the 5% interest per annum from August 24, 2017, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Order.1)

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

1) Defendant C is an infinite person who had operated a store with the trade name of “E” in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and Defendant D is an infinite person who has participated in the exercise of the rights held by Defendant C as the new money of Defendant C and received daily allowances from Defendant C.

2) On August 2006, the Plaintiffs found Defendant C in order to find out whether the Plaintiff was able to seek a new workplace while the Plaintiff was on the part of his husband and wife, and Defendant C ought to obtain the right to receive the payment of the contract. On the ground of the fact that Defendant C became able to obtain a new workplace after having performed the right to receive the payment of the contract, the Plaintiffs were able to follow the trust and good faith with Defendant C’s spirit and ability.

B. Payment of expenses to the plaintiffs

1) From December 3, 2013 to May 17, 2016, Plaintiff A paid to Defendant C a total of KRW 131,550,000 as follows, in the name of the expenses for the performance of the rights to receive the payment.

A person shall be appointed.

2) From January 10, 2015 to June 30, 2016, Plaintiff B paid to Defendant C the sum of KRW 57,750,000,00 as follows, in terms of the expenses for the surrender of the right to receive the payment.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3) Accordingly, Defendant C sent to the Plaintiffs the exercise of the right of redemption on February 2, 2014, around April 2015, and around June 2015, the performance of the right to receive reimbursement on or around July 2015, and the right to receive reimbursement on or around September 2015, the right to receive reimbursement on or around September 2015, and the right to receive reimbursement on or around November 2015, the right to receive reimbursement on or around the hand, the right to receive reimbursement on or around December 5, 2015, the right to receive reimbursement on or around December 2015, the right to receive reimbursement, the right to receive reimbursement on or around December 5, 2016, the right to receive reimbursement on or around February 5, 2016, the right to receive reimbursement from February 5, 2016 to June 2016, respectively, and Defendant D participated in each of the rights to receive reimbursement.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant C made a false statement as if the Plaintiff did not exercise the right of redemption against the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s children would be free to receive, or if the Plaintiff would be able to receive a premium, etc., the Defendants and their family members would have been bad. Defendant C, together with the Defendant C, made the Plaintiff potable through the “public veterinarian in the course of performing the right of surrender with the Defendant C.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 131,550,000 in total, and the Plaintiff B paid KRW 57,750,00 in total, and KRW 57,750 in total,00 in total, to the Defendant C. The Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 131,50,000 in compensation for damages incurred by the joint tort as above, and delay damages incurred therefrom to the Plaintiff B.

B. The defendants' assertion

The plaintiffs have decided to perform the right of redemption according to their own will, but they did not make any false statement, such as that the defendant C would have died or would be free of charge if it did not perform the right of redemption, and did not force the plaintiffs to perform the right of redemption, and on the part of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs actually performed the right of redemption. Upon the request of the defendant C, the defendant D merely received the cost of participating in the payment of the right of redemption with the defendant C, and did not have conspired with the defendant C or notified the plaintiffs of false public demand, harm, etc.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) On August 2006, Defendant C believed that the Plaintiffs had the ability to undergo the examination of Defendant C, and requested the acceptance of the rights of redemption to Defendant C on a regular basis. From December 2013 to December, 2013, Defendant C had the intent to receive money from the Plaintiffs for the expenses of the acceptance of the rights of redemption, etc. by receiving the money from the Plaintiffs and their family members as if it would be bad for the Plaintiffs and their family members unless the rights of redemption are exercised, such as: (a) the Plaintiffs would be able to receive the rights of redemption without any consent from the Plaintiffs; or (b) the Plaintiffs would be able to receive the rights of redemption without any consent from the Plaintiffs.

Around December 2013, Defendant C, who was found to hold a new town at the "E" point, at the "E" point, was to say that the Plaintiff A was well aware of it, and that there is a good performance of payment. There is a great amount of money. It is 50,00,000 won. The amount is so much high that Defendant C’s view that the Plaintiff would engage in the exercise of the rights of redemption is not good in front of that child, if the father was aware of that he had already received the performance of the rights of redemption. The father also received the performance of the right of trust, and his father has to supply the way to the Plaintiff. Before being the middle, there was a person who had been only in the middle, but the end was not good, and the Plaintiff was provided with the payment of the total amount of KRW 30,00,00,000,000 from 10,000,000 won to 30,015,000,000.

2) From the point of “E” around October 2015, Defendant C received the Plaintiff’s “E” from the point of “E”, “I want to make the Plaintiff’s child tending. I would be able to prevent the Plaintiff from becoming the child tending to become the child. I would have to conclude that the child would be the child tending to be the child, and that the child would be the child, and that the child would be the child, and that the child would be the child, would be the child, and that he received the sum of KRW 10,550,000 in total, as described in the table No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s basic facts from around that time to June 30, 2016, as described in the table No. 2 of the same paragraph, and acquired it by receiving a total of KRW 57,750,000,000 from around that time.

3) Defendant D continued to assist Defendant C in fraud by taking part in the conduct of public quarantine when Defendant C participated in the conduct of fraud as seen above, including the threat to the Plaintiffs or their families, or responding to Defendant C’s public quarantine, and taking part in the conduct of fraud as if the dead person was under the influence of the divorce.

4) Defendant C was indicted by the Seoul Central District Court 2017 order6312 with respect to the commission of fraud in the above paragraphs (1) and (2), and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor from the above court on June 22, 2018, and was filed on the same day, and the trial of the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2018No1985) is pending.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C, by deceiving the Plaintiffs, obtained KRW 131,50,00 from Plaintiff A, and KRW 57,750,000 from Plaintiff B, respectively, and Defendant D, in the course of performing the right to demand the performance of a contract, shall be deemed to have aided and abetting Defendant C by recognizing and aiding and abetting the fraudulent act of Defendant C in the process of performing the right to demand the performance of a contract. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs

As to this, the Defendants asserted that even if the Defendants’ liability for damages is recognized, the Defendants’ negligence should be taken into account. Therefore, it is not permissible to assert that a person who intentionally committed a tort by using the victim’s care constitutes a intentional tort. Therefore, it is not permissible to claim that a person who intentionally committed a tort reduces his/her liability on the ground of the victim’s negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21276, Jul. 8, 2010). The Defendants’ above assertion is rejected.

In addition, the Defendants asserted that the expenses incurred in relation to the goods used in relation to the performance of the contract shall be deducted from the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. However, there is no evidence to calculate the expenses incurred in relation to the performance of the contract, and the expenses incurred in relation to the goods used in relation to the performance of the contract for the performance of the contract are not deemed to have been beneficial to the Plaintiffs as a means for

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, as the Defendants jointly request by Plaintiff A to jointly pay KRW 131,50,00 to Plaintiff A, and as the last day from May 17, 2016, the day on which Plaintiff A paid money to Defendant C to September 30, 2016, Defendant C is the delivery day of a copy of the complaint of this case until September 30, 2016, Defendant D is 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act until August 24, 2017, and 15% per annum as provided by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, and damages for delay calculated by Plaintiff B from June 30, 2016 to the day on which Plaintiff C paid the last day of payment to Defendant C by the day on which each of the above Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was paid, and Defendant C is obligated to pay each of the above damages for delay from September 30, 2016 to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claims are well-grounded, all of them shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-chul

Judges Lee Jae-py

Support for judges' organization

1) The plaintiffs jointly and severally seek payment of the money set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition to the plaintiffs. However, as seen later, the plaintiffs are claiming damages for joint tort against the defendants, so they jointly and severally choose the "joint and several" as "joint and several."