예탁금반환
1. The Defendant: 70,000,000 won for Plaintiff A; 30,000,000 won for Plaintiff B; 10,000,000 won for Plaintiff C; and 30,000 won for Plaintiff D.
1.The facts under the recognition of facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the contents of Gap evidence 4 to 6, 9 to 18, 20, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 6 to 7 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings.
Around March 2005, H’s wife entered into a regular deposit agreement which deposits a total of KRW 230 million in the name of the Plaintiffs, KRW 150 million in the name of H, and KRW 30 million in the name of H, and KRW 30 million in the name of H, using an identification card received from the Plaintiffs who are related with the Plaintiffs for tax benefits and convenience of protecting depositors, etc., and affixed H’s seal on the deposit passbook or the transaction application form.
The above deposit contract in the name of the plaintiffs was extended by I by one-year unit by visiting the defendant, and finally deposited in a distributed deposit as shown below.
(C) On May 14, 2013, No. 20, No. 30,000, No. 30,000, No. 30,000, No. 40, No. 40, No. 140, May 14, 2012, Plaintiff 6, No. 20, No. 30,000, No. 40, No. 406, May 14, 2012, Plaintiff 206, No. 30, No. 40, No. 40, No. 5060, May 14, 2016, Plaintiff 206, No. 40, No. 40, No. 560, May 14, 2012, Plaintiff 206, No. 30, No. 146, Jun. 14, 2012