beta
Text
All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. From around 2011, F, the gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, opened an account under the Plaintiffs’ name with the consent of the Plaintiffs (Plaintiff A, their spouse G, Plaintiff C, and G’s children), and deposited F’s money. On July 16, 2013, F expressed its intent to donate money deposited in the Plaintiffs’ account under the Plaintiffs’ name to the Plaintiffs.
However, since the traffic accident occurred in January 2013, F did not make a normal judgment, the Defendant, the mother of Plaintiff A, prepared a monetary check as if he was delegated by the Plaintiffs from around 2013 to around 2014, and deposited deposits from H Association (hereinafter “H Association”) and I banks, thereby receiving money from the Plaintiffs’ accounts (see the attached Form; hereinafter “instant accounts”).
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff Eul for damages for the total amount of KRW 362,480,00,000, and the amount equivalent to the deposit of the H association, KRW 409,480,000, and KRW 47,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the deposit of the H association, and KRW 94,70,000,000, and KRW 47,000,000, the amount equivalent to the deposit of the H association, and KRW 141,70,000,000, and KRW 80,700,000,000, the amount equivalent to the deposit of the H bank, and KRW 47,00,700,000,000, which is the sum equivalent to the deposit of the I bank, and the damages for delay shall be paid to the defendant.
2. Determination
A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff is responsible for proving the facts alleged as the cause of the claim, the existence of objective documentary evidence that can support the Plaintiff’s assertion, or the existence of circumstantial facts that are obvious to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to his/her own assertion in the ordinary sense of common people, thereby having the court convictioning the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is true (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da20980, Jul. 28, 2011).