부당이득금
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that G entered into a contract of donation between G and the Defendant to the effect that it donated KRW 200 million in cash to the Defendant on April 9, 2015, and around that time, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 200 million from G is the Defendant.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The primary assertion 1) The Plaintiffs, the heir of G, asserted that the said gift contract was null and void since G entered into a gift contract with no capacity at the time when G had no capacity to express its intent. Moreover, it is insufficient to recognize that G was in a state with no capacity to express its intent at the time of the conclusion of the gift contract on the ground that G filed a complaint against the Defendant as embezzlement. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that G had no intention to express its intent to give a gift to G at the time of the conclusion of the gift contract on the ground that G filed a complaint against the Defendant.
3) The Plaintiffs’ primary claims do not need to further examine the remainder of the claims. (b) The Plaintiffs asserted that G donated KRW 200 million to the Defendant on the condition of nursing activities, such as sick and medical treatment of G, and hospital expenses, and that G did not comply with the above conditions, and that G rescinded a gift contract with content certification on May 19, 2015.
In light of the fact that the Defendant’s assertion that the gift conditions were not fulfilled, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s entry of No. 39 was not written in the gift contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was any condition on the gift.
2 The Plaintiffs, G and the Defendant, on April 26, 2015 or May 10, 2015.