(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.22 2013나21985

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.22 2013나21985

횡령금반환

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Plaintiff A’s wife who died around September 28, 2010 (hereinafter “the deceased”), Plaintiff B’s offspring, and Defendant’s birth.

B. On October 2010, the deceased’s death, around October 2010, the Defendant sold rice produced by the deceased to Nonghyup on behalf of the plaintiffs, and then received 35,805,720 won in total from Nonghyup over 48 times from October 20, 2010 to February 27, 201, to the agricultural bank account in the name of the defendant managed by the defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant used 29,395,720 won, excluding 6,410,000 won, which was paid with the plaintiffs’ permission or paid for the plaintiffs, for the personal purpose of the defendant.

C. The Defendant directly pays the difference to farmers to preserve the money equivalent to a certain percentage from December 2, 2010 to February 2011, 2011, if the decedent’s income preservation subsidies for rice, and the mountainous district price for rice produced by farmers is lower than the target price set by the Government.

d. The sum of KRW 10,361,930 was transferred to a post office account in the name of the Defendant’s mother (the Defendant’s mother) and was used for the Defendant’s personal purpose.

On October 21, 2010, the Defendant sold on behalf of the Plaintiffs one Tracker, one compacter, and one transferred machine owned by the Deceased, on the other hand, and received a total of KRW 9 million from the purchase price, and used it for all personal purposes of the Defendant.

E. As such, the Defendant, as the inherited property of the Plaintiffs, embezzled (hereinafter “instant embezzlement”), the sum of KRW 48,757,650 (=29,395,720 + KRW 10,361,930 + KRW 9 million) that was kept for the Plaintiffs, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiffs the amount stated in the claim corresponding to the respective inheritance shares of the Plaintiffs out of the instant embezzlement, as well as damages for delay.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the description of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the facts of recognition are as follows.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2013.11.29 2012가단59975

-제주지방법원 2016.06.15 2015고정772

-의정부지방법원 2014.06.10 2013고단2957

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2013.03.14 2012고단1002

-창원지방법원 2015.11.26 2015고합238