beta
Text
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 8,185,714, and KRW 5,457,142, respectively, to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)-B and C.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The fact that: (a) A paid a sum of KRW 30,760,000 to the Defendant as follows; (b) died on November 7, 2014, the bereaved family members at the time were the Plaintiff A, B, and C, whose wife was the Plaintiff B, and C, may be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments between the parties, or the purport of each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 12.
The remittance details No. 50,000 won, the gold payment date of April 18, 201, KRW 2,000,000,000,000 on August 23, 2011, KRW 3,0760,000,000 on August 24, 2011, KRW 4.6 million on August 24, 201, KRW 406,00,000 on November 8, 2012, KRW 5,60,00 on December 26, 2012, KRW 3,07,000,000 on the aggregate of KRW 4.1 million on January 13, 2014
B. Determination 1 as to the cause of the claim 1) The plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 30,760,000 paid to the defendant, such as the remittance, was the loan, and claimed against the defendant for its return, the defendant asserted that it was a subordinate and donated to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant decided on the details of remittance Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as above: (i) the deceased prepared and received a loan certificate from the defendant; (ii) the deceased kept the list of transactions in the deposit and the details of remittance Nos. 2 and 3; and (iii) the time, place, method, etc. of the account transfer while putting the list of transfers Nos. 2 and 3; and (iv) the defendant paid the amount requested by the deceased for the defendant to pay the above amount to the defendant several times before his birth. In light of the fact that the deceased urged the return of the amount to the defendant over several occasions, it is reasonable to view the details of transfer of the loan to 1 through 36.
Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the remittance Nos. 4 and 5 related to the 4 and 5’s remittances is a loan, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
C. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is KRW 5 million out of the loans 12 million in Serial 1 of the remittance details.