손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the conjunctive claim that was changed in this Court, is modified as follows.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of "1. Basic Facts" in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where "Evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance" was written with "Evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The deceased had been engaged in the business in partnership with the defendant before his death, and acquired rent from leasing each real estate, etc. listed in the separate sheet that he purchased through the work. As such, the deceased deposited income as above in the National Bank in the name of the deceased, the Bank of Korea, and the Industrial Bank of Korea account, the above deposit is all the deceased's property. However, for the two years before the deceased died, the sum of KRW 2,683,872,00 was withdrawn from the above account in the name of the deceased over several occasions during the two years before the deceased died. This was arbitrarily embezzled against the deceased's will, so the defendant residing in the same house as the deceased. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above withdrawal amount to the plaintiffs, who are the inheritor of the deceased, as compensation for tort.
3) Preliminaryly, even if the Defendant was delegated with the authority to manage the deceased’s account, the Defendant, as a mandatary, received the above-mentioned withdrawal from the deceased’s account through the management of delegated affairs, or received the equivalent profit or other negligence, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the above-mentioned withdrawal amount to the Plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased. In addition, if the Defendant did not receive delegation from the deceased, the Defendant would eventually benefit from the amount equivalent to the above-mentioned withdrawal amount without any legal cause. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above-mentioned withdrawal amount to the Plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, as unjust enrichment. 4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs’ share of inheritance is based on the final and conclusive contents in the decision of recommending reconciliation in the
B. The defendant.