beta
Text
1. The independent party intervenor shall reject the lawsuit against the defendant;
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 100,000,000.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D transferred KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant money”) to the Defendant on May 13, 2014, and died on November 7, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “D”. Co-inheritorss of the deceased have E, A, and F, the wife of the deceased.
B. Voluntary conciliation was established on January 19, 2017 by inheritance of KRW 100 million against the deceased’s claim on the instant money against E, A, and F in Busan Family Court 2015Dhap20001, where the Plaintiff claimed against E, A, and F.
C. The defendant is the intervenor's lawsuit.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D lent the instant money to the Defendant on May 13, 2014, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant loan claim. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
B. Around 2005, the Defendant’s assertion revealed that D was known to the chairperson of the Inspection Newdo Council. From around 2007 to D upon D’s request, the Defendant’s Intervenor was in charge of hospitalized treatment, kidney, etc., of D who had been suffering from a disease due to urinology.
The intervenor asked D to have the loan of KRW 100 million to the Defendant for business funds, and D transferred the instant money to the Defendant’s name account.
D, however, around October 20, 2014, at the same place with the Intervenor and C, the Intervenor donated the said money to the Intervenor, stating that “In order for the Intervenor to make a return to D with D having received the disease for 8 years, the Intervenor would use the instant money as the Intervenor’s old-age fund and not pay the said money and interest.”
In short, D loaned the instant money to the intervenors, and thereafter, D loaned the said money to the Intervenor, and thereafter, D donated the money to the Intervenor as above, on a different premise, the Defendant’s instant money from D.