beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 24, 1994, F, the Plaintiffs, filed a marriage report with the deceased G (the deceased on August 17, 2015, hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Defendant was recognized on September 28, 2016 by filing a suit for recognition with the Seoul Family Court (the Seoul Family Court Decision 2015ddan52865) after the deceased’s death as a married foreign person born between the deceased and E.
B. From the financial account under the Plaintiff A’s name, KRW 217,00,000 was remitted to the financial account under the name of the Deceased on December 21, 201, and KRW 69,000,000 on July 10, 2013, and KRW 20,000 on October 7, 2013, and KRW 60,000,000 on January 9, 2014.
C. From the financial account under Plaintiff B’s name, KRW 25,00,000 was remitted from October 25, 2013 to the deceased’s financial account under the name of the deceased.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3-2 and 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The summary of the assertion is that the Plaintiff A lends KRW 217,00,000 to the Deceased, and the Plaintiff B lends KRW 25,000,000 to the Deceased respectively, and the Defendant, who is a father of the Deceased, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff A KRW 33,384,615 (i.e., KRW 217,00,000 x inheritance shares x 2/13), KRW 3,846,153 (i.e., KRW 25,00,00 x 2/13) and damages for delay on the said money.
B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, each of the records in the Health Team, Nos. 1 and 2, as seen above, is insufficient to acknowledge that the money remitted to the deceased was a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, according to the above evidence and the statements in the evidence Nos. 3-5 and Nos. 6 through 9, the Plaintiff and F, from the financial account in the name of H, a corporation run by the Deceased and F, 40 times from August 30, 201 to April 7, 2014.