손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. Defendant B is KRW 106,729,822 and the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. D had a child between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, who is his father and father, and Defendant C is the husband of Defendant B.
B. On March 4, 2003, the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F. 186.4 square meters and its ground trees and 29.09 square meters for a single-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant real property”) owned by D had the ownership transfer registration for each of the Defendants’ respective shares of 1/2 shares on the grounds of sale on January 5, 2003.
C. On April 5, 2011, the Defendants sold the instant real estate in KRW 1.25 billion to G, and on May 4, 2011, the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate was completed in the future.
D The deceased on August 20, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and there is no active inherited property other than the deceased’s inheritance obligation and the instant real estate.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 11, 12-1, 12-3, witness H’s testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. The instant real estate was trusted in title by the Deceased to the Defendants, and the Defendants sold the instant real estate to G without the consent of the Deceased, embezzled the purchase price of KRW 1.25 million, and embezzled the amount of KRW 370,378,545 of the Deceased’s deposit without permission to withdraw KRW 370,378,545.
As the inheritor of the deceased, the Plaintiff seek against the Defendants for payment of KRW 810,189,272 [=( KRW 370,378,545) x 1/2] of the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares (1/2) out of the above embezzlement amount, and damages for delay.
B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone that the deceased held the instant real estate in title trust against the Defendants.
In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants withdrawn the deceased’s deposit without permission and embezzled it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit.
3. Preliminary claims: