손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 5,000,000 for each of the Plaintiffs and each of them, from March 4, 2016 to November 8, 2018.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Plaintiffs are simplified mother-and-child, and they are the husband of Plaintiff A and the husband of Plaintiff B (hereinafter “the deceased”).
A) Around May 7, 2015, the Defendants died. (2) The Defendants were attorneys-at-law affiliated with the law firm (with limited liability) and retired from the said legal entity and worked as attorneys-at-law affiliated with the law office on January 2016.
B. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs, including the delegation of the pertinent lawsuit, entered into a contract for the delegation of the lawsuit with F Law Firm (LLC) and filed a lawsuit claiming the agreed amount with G, etc. on July 22, 2015 as Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap546843.
At the time, the Plaintiffs entrusted Defendant D with five books, which are the deceased’s relics (hereinafter “the instant multilateral”), to examine whether they submitted as evidentiary materials in the instant lawsuit.
The Defendants, around January 2016, withdrawn from Law Firm F with Limited Liability, concluded a delegation contract with the Plaintiffs regarding the instant case, and kept the instant multilateral interest.
C. Around March 4, 2016, the Defendants, who lost the instant multilateral interest, informed Plaintiff A that the instant multilateral interest was lost.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 (including branch numbers in the case of additional evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' assertion lost the tea of this case, the only material of the deceased, and thus, they are obliged to pay the plaintiffs the consolation money of KRW 50 million and the delay damages for each of them.
3. Where the Defendants, the attorney-at-law, receive the fees from the clients and receive the fees from the clients, and receive litigation-related materials, they have the duty to carefully deal with the litigation-related materials.
Nevertheless, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendants jointly committed a tort which causes loss of the tea of this case in violation of such duty of care.