부당이득금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Basic facts (no dispute exists);
A. The original Defendant is a child of the deceased C (Death on December 21, 2002, hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. On July 20, 2012, the Compensation Deliberation Committee for Persons who performed Special Military missions decided to pay 238,540,210 won of compensation under the Act on the Compensation for Persons who Performed Special Military Missions to the deceased’s successors as inheritance shares.
The deceased’s heir is D (spouse), E, F, and G (children) in addition to the original Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s share among the above compensation is 36,698,490 won (=238,540,210 won x 2/13,00 won).
C. Around that time, the Defendant received the full amount of KRW 238,540,210 as the bereaved family representative by delegation from the Plaintiff and other co-inheritors, and paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Although the Defendant should distribute the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 36,698,490 to the Plaintiff among the compensation received as the representative of the Plaintiff’s bereaved family members, the Defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 16,698,490 to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 16,698,490 with the return of unjust enrichment.
B. Following the Defendant’s receipt of compensation, co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, recognized the entitlement to a contributory portion for the Defendant’s support of D, and agreed to receive allocation of KRW 30,000,000 to E, the Plaintiff and F, KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant’s support, and KRW 15,00,000 to G, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable.
3. The witness F’s testimony, consistent with the fact that there was an agreement as alleged by the Defendant, is difficult to believe with the following point of view, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.
① The F, “Around the receipt of the Defendant’s compensation, all inheritors attended and consulted,” but subsequently reversed the Defendant’s statement that “A person who was born at the same time was the original Defendant and the remaining inheritors consulted on the ship.”
② F was not paid to the Defendant on March 2018, 16.