Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 930,898,240 with respect to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from June 14, 2016 to July 27, 2017.
Reasons
Attached Form
The facts of the cause of the claim (including the fact that the plaintiff paid insurance money to C on June 13, 2016) do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1-5 (if any, the indication is omitted).
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquires the right to claim damages against the Defendants by the insured C Co., Ltd. in accordance with the subrogation doctrine.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, the joint tortfeasor, are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 950,898,240, which is the amount of damages of Co., Ltd., and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 14, 2016 to July 27, 2017, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
Although the Defendants denied the theft, the Incheon District Court Decision 2016No15, 298 (Consolidated) was recognized to have committed a special larceny offense against the Defendants, and all of the Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny on December 22, 2016. Accordingly, the Defendants’ final appeal against the dismissal of the Defendants’ final appeal against the dismissal of the final judgment is either a dispute between the parties, or the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 2 and 5 (the Defendant B submitted the above written judgment along with the summary dispute mediation document on August 25, 2017).
Unless there are special circumstances, the facts recognized in a criminal judgment are important evidence in a civil trial, and the defendants' assertion alone is insufficient to reverse it.
The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are legitimate, and they are accepted.