beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
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A, on May 27, 2004, at the Changwon Branch of Choung Bank on the same day, the Plaintiff C withdrawn the total of KRW 60 million in KRW 250 million from the same bank on the same day as the same day as the check [the face value of KRW 50 million (H or I) and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. Summary of the assertion
A. The plaintiffs asserted 1) on May 27, 2004, upon the defendants' request, leased KRW 610 million to the defendants on May 26, 2006. Thus, the defendants are obligated to pay to each plaintiff A the amount of KRW 360 million, KRW 250 million to the plaintiff C, and the damages for delay from May 27, 2006 to the date of full payment (main claim) which is the day following the due date for each of these payments. Even if the above lending facts are not recognized, the defendants are forced to withdraw KRW 610 million against the plaintiffs' will and use it as the whole tax amount of the defendants. Thus, the defendants are obligated to return it as unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.
(Preliminary Claim). (b)
The defendants alleged by the defendants merely received KRW 160 million from the plaintiffs as a full-time loan, and they did not borrow KRW 610 million. Thus, the above money is borrowed.