2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff was a de facto spouse of E, and the defendants are children of E.

B. E, upon receipt of land compensation of KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff and kept for the Plaintiff, donated KRW 50 million to the Defendants each of KRW 80 million, and used it to lease or purchase a vehicle to a third party, and embezzled the said money at will by arbitrarily consuming KRW 400 million. Accordingly, on January 11, 2018, upon being sentenced to a punishment of two-year suspension of execution in imprisonment with labor for one year and two months, the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 19th of the same month.

[The grounds for recognition] . [The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 2 and 8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as shown in the evidence Nos. 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 596, 2091

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, a child of E, participated in or aided the embezzlement of E in collusion with E, and that the Defendants received each of 50 million won and committed the crime of acquiring stolen property, thereby having committed the crime of acquiring stolen property, and sought payment of the amount stated in the claim as compensation for damages arising from joint tort.

B. The burden of proving the elements for establishing tort is borne by the person who asserts the tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da31765, Nov. 27, 2014). Meanwhile, Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aided person or aided person shall be deemed a collaborative act, thereby imposing liability on an aided person as a joint tortfeasor. In order to impose liability on an aided person as a joint tortfeasor, there is a proximate causal relation between the aiding and abetting act and the illegal act of

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da31264 delivered on December 23, 1998, etc.). The Defendants received KRW 50 million among the instant money, as seen earlier.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 1, 10, and 13 (including paper numbers), alone, is an embezzlement of E as alleged by the Plaintiff.