beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On August 14, 2016, the net C died and owned inherited property, and there was KRW 76,889,682 on the apartment house in the name of Dongin (D apartment E, hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the bank account in the name of Dongin.
As an heir, there is the plaintiff, defendant, F, and G as a child of the network C.
B. On October 11, 2016, the inheritors agreed to dispose of the instant apartment after transferring it to the Defendant’s sole name and equally divide the price.
The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 110,00,000,000,000, which is 1/4 of the apartment price of the instant apartment.
C. On October 11, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, F, and G, that “the deposits in the decedent’s account would be their own account,” issued the right to withdraw to the Defendant so that the Defendant may recover the said deposits.
However, since the above deposit is the money of the decedents twice, the declaration of intention that the plaintiff transferred the right to withdrawal to the defendant shall be revoked by the delivery of the complaint of this
The defendant shall return KRW 19,200,000, which is equivalent to the plaintiff's inherited shares.
(b) Claim KRW 120,00,000 for the convenience of calculation among the aggregate amounts of paragraphs (b) and (c)
A. The defendant asserts that there was no agreement as above with respect to the apartment of this case. As long as the plaintiff prepared a written agreement on the division of inherited property (Evidence No. 1) and made an oral agreement contrary to this, it is difficult to believe in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff made an oral agreement on the contents contrary to this, and the statement No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2-2 is likely to believe in light of the witness G's testimony, and it is insufficient to recognize
B. According to the evidence Nos. 6 and 9 (including the paper number) as to the above deposit, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant used the deceased’s deposit account with the name of the deceased, and that the deposit was opened several times with the money. The evidence No. 9 alone is the money collected by the deceased.