beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 2 to the Plaintiff’s new argument at the trial. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she deposited KRW 39 million from the Cit Bank’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, and transferred KRW 30 million out of which to the network I (hereinafter “the deceased”). On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million out of the cancellation amount of the Plaintiff’s post office deposit deposit to the Bank’s account under the name of the deceased (hereinafter “each of the instant money”). On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 31,092,071 million from the deceased.
Therefore, the Defendants who inherited the deceased’s property without any legal cause acquire the remainder of KRW 48,907,929 (i.e., the amount of KRW 80 million - the amount of KRW 31,092,071, which was returned by the deceased to the Plaintiff) with the exception of the amount returned as above from each of the instant amounts, and therefore, the Defendants, who inherited the deceased’s property, should pay the said amount and delay damages to the Plaintiff according to their respective inheritance shares.
B. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff may be found to have remitted the total sum of KRW 80 million to the Deceased on August 12, 2014 and KRW 80 million on August 14, 2014.
However, the following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., the plaintiff, who works as a member of the Korean flag of the large media (H) from around 1975 to around 2015, supported the deceased's work while working as a member of the Korean flag of the large media (H), and ② the occupation and deposit account details of the plaintiff and the deceased.