beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 20, 2013, the Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff were the husband D’s own consciousness that the Plaintiff remarriedd, and the Plaintiff and D were to repay KRW 130 million with Defendant C’s business funds. The Defendants, who were in this context, got transferred KRW 130 million from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and defrauded the money.
Therefore, as joint tortfeasor, the Defendants jointly pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 130 million, and damages for delay thereof.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff was indicted on May 27, 2013 that: (a) the Plaintiff remitted KRW 130 million to the bank account under Defendant B’s name; (b) thereafter, the amount of KRW 100 million was delivered to Defendant C; (c) on May 10, 2013, the Defendants concealed the Plaintiff without intent or ability to repay, and (d) borrowed KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff for the purpose of receiving KRW 130 million from the Plaintiff until December 2013; and (b) the first instance court (Seoul District Court resident support 2019DaDa344) found the Defendants guilty on February 11, 202.
B. However, as to whether the Plaintiff is the actual owner of KRW 130 million and is the victim of the above illegal act, the following facts or facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including all several documentary evidence). In other words, while the court of first instance rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendants as above, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of exemption to the Defendants by deeming the actual victim who was obtained by deception of KRW 130 million as D, and the above statement by the Plaintiff as to the source or method of preparation of KRW 130 million is inconsistent in the trial of the above criminal trial and the argument of this case, and is not consistent, while evidence of such assertion is not submitted to D and the Plaintiff’s account.