구상금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Status 1) G (Death on March 26, 2015, hereinafter “the deceased”)
(2) Defendant C, D, E, and F are children of K, both the Plaintiff, Defendant B, H, I, J, and K (Death on June 15, 1975).
3) Of the deceased’s inherited property, the Plaintiff, and Defendant B inherited 1/6 shares, and the Defendants C, D, E, and F inherited 1/24 shares, respectively. B. The Plaintiff wired the account in the name of the deceased to the account in the name of the deceased, with KRW 10 million on May 8, 2009, and KRW 50 million on May 29, 2009, respectively. From October 22, 2014 to April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 93,605,926 in total of the loans owed in the name of the deceased in the name of the Chungcheongnam Saemaul Bank, Seosan-nam Saemaul Bank, and Seosan National Agricultural Cooperatives. [In the absence of any dispute over recognition, Gap 1,6,7,15 evidence, each of the fact inquiry results, the purport of each of the arguments in this court, the purport of the whole arguments, and the purport of each of the arguments in this court as a whole.
2. Claim for the amount of compensation by subrogation;
A. Determination 1 on the cause of the claim is as seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff repaid the Plaintiff’s debt on behalf of the deceased without any internal relation. If the Plaintiff repaid the Plaintiff’s debt on behalf of the deceased without any internal relation, the deceased would have made unjust enrichment in the amount of the loan debt repaid (the Plaintiff did not have committed any act such as guaranteeing the deceased’s loan obligation, and thus, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s repayment would only lead to the management of affairs or the issue of unjust enrichment as the repayment by a third party to the Plaintiff’s debt, and does not have a strict relation of indemnity.
(2) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to bear the obligation against the deceased, or to have used the loan under the name of the deceased. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be readily concluded that the deceased took advantage of the benefit without any legal cause due to the Plaintiff’s reimbursement. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
1. Mysan shall be Nonghyup.