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. The Plaintiff A married with the network F, and formed G, Defendant D, and Plaintiff C under the chain, and Defendant D and Defendant E are married between husband and wife.
B. On September 16, 2010, Plaintiff A was declared incompetent and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 201, and on March 2, 2011, G was designated as guardian. Defendant D applied for the change of guardian, and the guardian was changed from G to B on October 31, 201, and the decision became final and conclusive on April 22, 2013.
(Supreme Court Decision 2013S8). C.
Plaintiff
A, on May 27, 2004, at the Changwon Branch of Choung Bank on the same day, the Plaintiff C withdrawn the total of KRW 60 million in KRW 250 million from the same bank on the same day as the same day as the check [the face value of KRW 50 million (H or I) and KRW 31 million in KRW 10 million in face value (the check number J or K) and paid KRW 160 million among them to the Defendants.
【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-1, Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 2-1, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs asserted that they are obligated to pay damages for delay from May 27, 2006 to the defendants on May 26, 2004 at the request of the defendants to the plaintiff on May 27, 2004, with KRW 610 million due date set on May 26, 2006. The defendants asserted that they are obligated to pay to each plaintiff A 360 million, KRW 250 million, and KRW 250 million to the plaintiff C from May 27, 2006 to the date of full payment.
As to this, the defendants asserted that they merely received KRW 160 million from the plaintiffs as a full-time loan, and that they did not conclude a loan contract for consumption with KRW 610 million.
3. The plaintiffs withdrawn money at the Changwon branch of Cho Ho-a Bank on May 27, 2004 and paid 160 million won to the defendants as seen above.
However, the evidence No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 4-1, No. 4-3, and No. 14 are recognized by the purport of the whole pleadings.