beta
Text
All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiffs, as parents of the deceased D (hereinafter “the Deceased”); Plaintiff A, to the Deceased on November 6, 2017; and Plaintiff B, to the Deceased on August 50, 200,000 on August 16, 2010; and Plaintiff B, to the extent that the sum of KRW 75,000,000 on March 7, 201, was KRW 75,000,000, respectively.
Even after the deceased's previous wife was divorced, the Defendant has been living together with the deceased. Since the deceased borrowed each of the above money from the plaintiff is a juristic act on daily home affairs, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the deceased pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act, and the defendant paid 20,000,000 won out of the above 75,00,000 won to the plaintiff B on January 29, 2020, the defendant is obligated to pay 28,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 55,000,000 won to the plaintiff B, respectively.
B. The defendant refused the plaintiffs' request to exchange the deceased's relics, and caused the plaintiffs to not contact his children, etc. so that they are obliged to pay 10,000,000 won to the plaintiffs as consolation money on the ground of tort.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion that there was no dispute as to the fact that the parties had given and received money between the parties to the judgment on the claim for a loan, but when the defendant contests against the defendant, they bear the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Nov. 24, 2018). The fact that the plaintiff paid the deceased's total amount of KRW 75,000,000 on August 16, 2010, KRW 50,000 on March 7, 2011, and KRW 75,000,000,000 on March 7, 201, the fact that the defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the deceased's children on Nov. 29, 202, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as to the evidence No. 6, and the fact that the defendant paid KRW 200,00,000.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that each of the above money paid to the deceased was a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, it is true.