beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant G clan (hereinafter “Defendant G clan”) is a clan with the descendants of I as its members, and Defendant H is the representative of the Defendant clan, and the Plaintiffs are the members of the Defendant clan.
B. On June 17, 2007, at a general meeting held on June 17, 2007, the Defendant clan made a resolution to distribute KRW 445 million, among the clan sales proceeds, to the J, K, L, M, N,O and network P, net Q and R, network S, T, U, and H (hereinafter “J, etc.”) 1/13 each, in 34.230,00 won (hereinafter “the resolution of distribution of this case”). On November 9, 2016, the Defendant clan adopted a resolution to confirm the resolution of distribution of this case at a general meeting held on November 9, 2016 (hereinafter “the ratification resolution of this case”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs asserted unjust enrichment (the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015Gahap1182, hereinafter “instant prior suit”) filed against the Defendant clan, which confirmed that the instant resolution of distribution and the instant ratification resolution were null and void, became final and conclusive on November 7, 2017, and thus, the Defendants did not perform any act in spite of the need to recover the amount distributed by the J, etc. and make a resolution to distribute it to the Plaintiffs.
Since such omission by the Defendants constitutes tort against the Plaintiffs, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by tort.
3. The tort stipulated in Article 750 of the Civil Act can be committed not only by commission but also by omission by a person obligated to act, who does not take all measures to prevent it. However, at this time, the duty to act is a legal obligation and does not include a simple moral or religious obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8709, Apr. 26, 2012).