beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 748(2) of the Civil Act provides that “A malicious beneficiary shall return any damage, with interest added thereto, if any, to which he/she received, shall compensate for such damage.” Article 749(2) of the same Act provides that “When a bona fide beneficiary loses, he/she shall be deemed a bona fide beneficiary from the time he/she files a lawsuit.” In such cases, the beneficiary shall prove that he/she is a bad faith, and “when a lawsuit is filed” refers to when a copy of the complaint is served on
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da119481, Feb. 13, 2014). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to pay legal interest as a malicious beneficiary from the time when the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit, namely, when the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below acknowledged facts based on the employment evidence, and accepted the claim for return of unjust enrichment corresponding to the share 9/11 by the agreement division of inherited property, or transferred the claim for return of unjust enrichment corresponding to the share 9/11 from the remaining inheritors.
On the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant acquired the above claim for return of unjust enrichment for other reasons, the defendant judged that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff K the unjust enrichment amounting to 2/11 shares.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the agreement on inheritance and inheritance division.