beta
Text
1. The part against Plaintiff A in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
Plaintiff
A All claims against the Defendants are filed.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim against the Defendants (Dismissal)
A. On November 2013, the Defendants of the Plaintiff’s assertion made a mistake as to the return of unjust enrichment and the claim for damages caused by forcibly taking advantage of or by deceptioning the Plaintiff, or as if they were to receive the advance payment of inherited property division agreement, and thereby deceiving the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, Defendant D was to pay KRW 175 million on July 7, 2013, and KRW 100 million on December 2013, Defendant E was to receive KRW 185 million on November 7, 2013, and KRW 180 million on November 7, 2013, and KRW 100 million on each of the above legal arguments and damages damages amounted to KRW 350,500,000 ( KRW 180,000 + KRW 1750,000,000). Accordingly, according to the purport of each of the Defendants’ respective legal arguments and damages amount to KRW 180,000,000,000,00 each of the Defendants.
However, the above evidence and Eul were acknowledged by the purport of each description of No. 2 and the entire pleadings, and the evidence presented by the plaintiff A alone was an agreement on the division of inherited property between the plaintiff A and the defendants, in view of the facts and circumstances described in subparagraph 2.
The fact that the Defendants paid advance payment thereof is insufficient to recognize that they received the said money by threatening Plaintiff A or by deceiving Plaintiff A as if they were to transfer the Defendants’ inheritance shares, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, the plaintiff A appears to have paid the above money to the defendants in order to avoid suspicion that the plaintiff A had concealed the amount of 4.2 billion won withdrawn from the account in the name of F.
Therefore, the plaintiff A's above assertion is without merit.