beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The grounds for this part of the facts are as follows: (a) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of the part “.... on the other hand, payment of funeral expenses or funeral expenses,” and thus, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part; and (b) the same is
2. Determination on a claim for funeral expenses
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 56 (including branch numbers, if the deceased died; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that on December 16, 2010, the plaintiff paid KRW 22,07,200, a sum of KRW 14,216,200, the funeral fee of the Sung-si Hospital, and the funeral expenses for funeral expenses without the participation or involvement of the defendant who is a co-inheritors, and for funeral expenses, KRW 345,00, 7,000, the amount of the deceased’s funeral expenses, the amount of KRW 7,010,00, and the amount of KRW 436,00,000, respectively, for funeral expenses.
According to this, the defendant, who is a co-inheritors of the deceased, has a duty to share 22,07,200 won of funeral expenses paid by the plaintiff according to his/her inheritance shares, unless there are special circumstances.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion that it violates the principle of good faith, the Defendant, at the time of the death of the deceased, sleeped the financial property of the deceased with the mind of supporting the deceased, and appropriated funeral expenses with the deceased’s financial property. The Defendant’s claim for the apportionment of funeral expenses is unjust in violation of the principle of good faith.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff saw the financial property of the deceased in mind and appropriated funeral expenses with the financial property of the deceased on the pretext of supporting the deceased, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, the Defendant’s instant housing donated by the Deceased.