손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are children of the deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. From October 28, 2002 to May 13, 2014, the sum of KRW 405,537,746 was transferred from October 28, 2002 to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the deceased. From June 20, 2001 to May 13, 201, the sum of KRW 66,884,000 was transferred from the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the deceased to the deposit account in the name of the deceased.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's acquisition by transfer of KRW 405,537,746 from the deposit account in the name of the deceased appears to have been caused by the defendant's illegal act deceiving the deceased, who is the franchisor, and there is no reason for the deceased to pay the above money to the defendant. Thus, the defendant must clarify the monetary relationship with the deceased in detail, and
Therefore, the Plaintiffs, who are the inheritors of the Deceased, seek payment of KRW 66,884,00, which is the remainder of the amount set off by the Defendant on an equal value, from the above KRW 405,537,746, which the Defendant acquired by transfer from the Deceased as compensation for damages caused by the tort against the Defendant.
3. In a claim for damages caused by a tort, the burden of proving the perpetrator’s harmful act, the victim’s occurrence of damages, and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the occurrence of damages is borne by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da68613, Jul. 24, 2014). In a civil lawsuit, the burden of proving facts is not a natural scientific proof that is not the suspicion of prosecution, but a comprehensive examination of all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, and barring any special circumstance, it is highly probable that there was a fact. The judgment requires to be such a degree as not to be an ordinary doubt.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6755 Decided October 28, 2010).