보관금반환
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant is KRW 25 million against the plaintiff A, and KRW 15 million against the plaintiff B.
1. The additional Plaintiffs filed a claim in the scope of appeal and the trial at the court of first instance for the return of the deposited money or the return of unjust enrichment pursuant to the custody agreement at the court of first instance, but were rendered a judgment against the entire losing party.
As stated in the purport of appeal, the plaintiffs appealed on the part of the first instance judgment against them.
The plaintiffs were selected to add the damages claim due to non-performance or tort within the scope of the amount stated in the purport of the appeal.
The “return of the deposit under the custody agreement,” which the Plaintiffs claimed in the first instance trial, is substantially the same as the “request for restitution following the termination or cancellation of the custody agreement,” which the Plaintiffs claimed in the first instance trial, in that it is the applicant for restitution following the termination of the custody agreement.
Therefore, this part of the claim is deemed not to have been changed.
2. Basic facts are based on the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act), except where the court finds “one-way branch” in the third third third part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “one-way branch” as “one-way branch.” As such, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
3. Determination of a claim for damages caused by a tort (Partial recognition)
A. Even if the Defendant asserts that “the deceased G exclusively managed the instant money,” the Defendant shall be liable for damages caused by tort against the Plaintiffs on the following grounds.
1) The fact that “the instant money deposited by the network G in the Defendant’s account on July 9, 2015” was the money of the network D, as seen earlier.
In full view of the evidence adopted above, evidence No. 6-1, part of evidence No. 6-1, witness E of the first instance court, and part of the personal identification result of the party court's trial court against the defendant, the deceased D, who was in front of the end of the time, entrusted the management of the money of this case to the deceased G on behalf of his heir.