(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.23 2015가단243001

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.23 2015가단243001

기타(금전)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,133,33 of each of the Plaintiffs and its related KRW 5% per annum from November 17, 2015 to September 23, 2016; and (b).

Reasons

1. Facts recognized;

A. E resumed with the Defendant on September 22, 2014, and died on May 20, 2015.

B. The Plaintiffs, as children of the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”), succeeded to the rights and obligations of the deceased’s property as 2/9 shares, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 32,468,888,888, respectively, to the Plaintiffs who inherited the deceased’s right to claim the return (=146,11,000 won x 2/9 shares) since the Defendant voluntarily withdraws KRW 146,110,00 from September 27, 2014 to May 29, 2015, and then arbitrarily uses KRW 146,110,00,000, from September 27, 2014 to May 29, 2015.

3. Determination

A. The fact that money entered in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 10 is withdrawn or transferred to the Defendant’s account on each day indicated in the separate sheet for determination as to the number 1 through 10, is not in dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by the statement in the evidence No. 4. However, the mere fact that the fact that Gap’s evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 7-1, 2, and 8 is not recognized, the statement in each of the evidence No. 7-1, 2, and 8, the reply to the order to submit financial transaction information to our bank, and the lending of KRW 30 million as of April 3, 2015 alleged by the Defendant is insufficient to deem that the Defendant deducteds each of the above money or obtained unjust enrichment,

B. The fact that the Defendant withdrawn the amount indicated in Nos. 11 through 17 from the deceased’s account or transferred the amount to the Defendant’s account does not conflict between the parties.

However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant was delegated by the Deceased as alleged by the Defendant regarding the above withdrawal, etc. (In the case of No. 17, even if the delegation was made, the account transfer was made after the termination of the delegation relationship due to the death of the Deceased).

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2016나9096

-서울행정법원 2017. 01. 06. 선고 2015구합75381 판결

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.05.12 2012가합7927

-서울고등법원 2015.02.25 2013나2013236

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가합532134