2020Na2009198 Damages

A

Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Sejong-tae

1. B

2. C

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Lee In-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019Da55642 Decided February 6, 2020

September 24, 2020

November 10, 2020

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendants jointly deliver ETS 2,228 ETS to the plaintiff. The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 655,302,80 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from July 22, 2018 to September 18, 2020 to September 12, 200 to the day of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim, and 12% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the primary claim and corrected the conjunctive claim).

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition as follows, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following contents shall be added to the end of the third seven parallels in the judgment of the first instance.

"ETHum and ETH" are the kind of virtual currency based on the block chain technology.

2. The plaintiff's assertion 1

(a)requesting delivery around them;

As delineated below, the deceased was obligated to deliver Cding 2,228 ETS (ETS) to the Plaintiff as a result of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages following the rescission, the duty to return unjust enrichment, or the duty to return unjust enrichment pursuant to an agreement, and the Defendants succeeded to the deceased’s obligations, and thus jointly have the duty to deliver the deceased’s obligations to the Plaintiff. While the Defendants were subject to qualified acceptance or renunciation of inheritance, the Defendants intentionally omitted and concealed part of the inherited property with the intent to prejudice the obligee including the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants’ qualified acceptance

1) Damages and restoration to the deceased upon cancellation of a transaction agreement

The plaintiff and the deceased, as indicated below, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to pay each of the corresponding transaction terms in the "cryption quantity" column to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "each transaction agreement of this case"). Accordingly, the plaintiff did not return only 30% of the total amount of the plaintiff's obligations to the plaintiff, 30% of the total amount of the transaction agreements of this case, 30% of the total amount of the plaintiff's obligations to the plaintiff and 28% of the total amount of the transaction agreements of this case, 30% of the total amount of the plaintiff's obligations to the plaintiff, 30% of the total amount of the transaction agreements of this case, 30% of the total amount of the plaintiff's obligations to the plaintiff, 30% of the total amount of the transaction agreements of this case, 30% of the total amount of the transaction agreements of this case, 201 of the plaintiff's total amount of the contract of this case, and 30% of the total amount of the plaintiff's obligations to the plaintiff.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2) The deceased’s duty to return obsesses pursuant to the return agreement around November 2018

Around November 2018, when the Plaintiff did not properly perform his/her obligations under each of the instant transaction agreements, the interest rate decreased to a level of approximately 1/3 compared to May 12, 2018, when the Plaintiff first transmitted his/her interest rate to the Deceased. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the investors demanded the Deceased to preserve the interest rate up to the low portion of the interest rate transmitted to the Deceased. On November 3, 2018, the deceased promised to return twice the interest rate transmitted to the Plaintiff in consideration of the decline in the market price. The deceased agreed to return twice the interest rate transmitted to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2018. On November 29, 2018, the deceased and investors, including the Plaintiff, returned 40,000 interest rate of KRW 40,00 (the Plaintiff’s interest rate of KRW 4,916,00 among them, was the Plaintiff’s share) from China. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the Plaintiff’s interest rate to the Plaintiff’s 2.

3) The deceased’s return of unjust enrichment

If each of the instant transaction agreements or return agreements between the Plaintiff and the Deceased are not acknowledged, the Deceased acquired 2,228 Ethical learning from the Plaintiff without any legal cause as to each of the instant transmission records. Accordingly, the Deceased is obligated to return the aforementioned 2,228 Ethical learning as unjust enrichment.

B. Preliminary claim for damages caused by tort

The Deceased, without any intention to deal with cryptism from the beginning, deceiving the Plaintiff and acquired 2,28 cryptions from the Plaintiff. Following the occurrence of each transmission of the instant case, a large amount of money was transferred to the deceased’s bank account immediately after the occurrence of each transmission of the instant case, the Deceased had been able to provide cryptive life since the transaction with the Plaintiff, and the Deceased had not left China around November 2018, and the Plaintiff and other investors, including the Plaintiff, received cryptive learning by directly visiting the Chinese business partners and received return of cryptive learning. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the total market price at the time when the Plaintiff sent cryptive learning to the Deceased. Accordingly, the Deceased was obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total sum of KRW 1,368,270,303 as indicated in the attached Table, but the Plaintiff did not have any effect as the Defendants’ waiver of inheritance or the Defendants’ waiver of inheritance under an explicit claim.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the main claim

1) Determination as to the assertion of damages following cancellation and reinstatement

A) Whether each transmission of the instant case was sent to the deceased

According to the purport of the entire statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 12 (including each number, hereinafter referred to as the whole number, unless the number is specified in several numbers), each of the transmission contents of this case is recognized as actually existing. However, among the transmission contents of this case, it may be recognized that the plaintiff transmitted the deceased. However, although it is difficult to recognize that the rest of the transmission content of the above 3 through 7 is the content of the plaintiff's transmission to the deceased, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff sent it to the deceased only by the evidence of the plaintiff's submission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

(1) Details of the first transmission of this case

According to the evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3-1, evidence No. 11-3, and evidence No. 16, and evidence No. 22, it is recognized that the 740 ionion stated in the contract of this case was transmitted to the electronic wallets designated by the Deceased on the day following the preparation of the contract of this case.

(2) Details of the 2, 8 through 11 transmission of the instant case

According to the evidence Nos. 3-2 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 11-2, 4, and 12-6 through 9, Gap evidence Nos. 30, 31, 33, and 34, it is recognized that the transfer was transmitted to the electronic wallets designated by the deceased, such as the content of transmission in the case Nos. 2, 8 through 11.

(3) Details of the third, fourth,6,7 transmission of the instant case

According to the evidence Nos. 11-2, 5, and 12-1, 2, 4, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 11-2, 5, and 12-1, it is recognized that the ion was transmitted to the electronic wallets designated by the deceased, such as the transmission details of the case Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7, but it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff transmitted it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff asserts that the above transmission content was the transmission of her learning to the deceased's wallper with the third party's wallper, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above transmission content was the transmission of her wallper with the deceased's wallper, but there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to prove that the transmission content of 6 and 7 transmission in the lawsuit filed against the plaintiff et al. (Seoul Central District Court 2020Gahap52569) for damages claim against the plaintiff et al. (Seoul Central District Court 2020Gahap52569).

(4) Details of the fifth transmission of the instant case

According to the statements No. 11-4 and No. 12-3 of the Evidence No. 11-3, it is recognized that the ion was transmitted to the e-mail designated by the deceased, such as the content of the fifth transmission of this case.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence of the plaintiff's submission, such as the statement of evidence No. 32, is the plaintiff's electronic wallets, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the plaintiff was entitled to access the "batter A" received as the designation of the deceased, and the fact that the batter's learning was transmitted several times from the "batter A" received as the third electronic wallets.

B) Whether a transaction agreement was concluded between the deceased and the plaintiff

(1) With respect to the part of the Plaintiff’s transmission of crypted with an electronic wall tag for the designation of the Deceased (the transmission content) where the Plaintiff sent crypted with an electronic wall tag for the designation of the Deceased, it is insufficient to recognize that the agreement was concluded only with the health unit, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that otherwise. Therefore, the above assertion by the Plaintiff on a different premise is without merit without need to further examine.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that, based on the respective statements in the Evidence Nos. 35 and 36, the Plaintiff and the Deceased, based on which the Plaintiff and the Deceased appear to have entered into a trade agreement between 31,553 of the instant case with a view to exchanging 1,53 quota chain per 1,000. However, the aforementioned evidence is a “the other party to the Kakakakao Stockholm conversation (not known)”, and the contents and context of the conversations cannot be known at all. In particular, in the case of Evidence No. 36, the message was not entered in the date and time signal, and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff and the Deceased actually entered such a conversation. Furthermore, it appears that the content of the Evidence No. 35 itself appears to be related to the distribution of the quota chain in the future, and it is not clear whether it was the distribution to the Plaintiff, and in the case of Evidence No. 36, the Plaintiff merely inform the other party of the distribution of the shares to the third party’s electronic coding.

(3) According to the evidence evidence No. 18, the Plaintiff and the Deceased are recognized that they dialogueed on November 3, 2018 with the following contents as Kakakao Stockholm on November 3, 2018 (hereinafter “the dialogue”).

○○ Deceased: around 12:16, “I, 40 U.S. S. 1, 40 U.S. : 5 U.S. - 40 U.S. - 7 U.S. - 40 U.S. - 40 U.S. - 40 U.S. - 7 U.S. - 547 U.S. - 15 U.S. : S. 40 U.S. : S. - 7 U.S. - 7 U.S. - 5 U.S. : U.S. - 40 U.S. - 7 U.S. - 5 U.S. : U.S. - 40 U.S. - 7 U.S. : U.S. - 10 U.S. : S. 5 U.S. : S. - 10 U.S. : M. 23: M. :

The Plaintiff asserts that there existed such terms and conditions of transaction between the Plaintiff and the Deceased on the basis of the content of the conversation on November 3, 2018. However, in light of the following: (a) in the conversation on November 3, 2018, the Plaintiff was asked to the Deceased to present the cryptist exchange rate; and (b) the Deceased confirmed the remainder of the cryptist exchange rate except for China’s business partners and KON as presented by the Plaintiff; and (c) in light of the above, the dialogue on November 3, 2018 appears to be a dialogue on how to determine the cryptist exchange rate in the return agreement with the Chinese business partners; and (d) it is difficult to view the terms and conditions of transaction between the Deceased and the Plaintiff as a dialogue on determining the cryptist exchange rate.

(4) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the Deceased entered into an encryption exchange contract under the same conditions as the instant 5 through 11 transaction agreement with other investors, the Plaintiff and the Deceased should be recognized as having entered into the instant 5 through 11 transaction agreement as well as the Plaintiff and the Deceased. However, even if the Deceased were to engage in a juristic act with other persons, it cannot be inferred that the same content was entered into even if the Plaintiff and the Deceased were to have entered into the same contract.

C) Whether the deceased did not perform his/her duty

Even if it is assumed that each transaction agreement was concluded with the deceased as alleged by the plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the deceased did not perform his/her obligation to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance judgment, which was accepted by the above Paragraph (1), evidence of the first instance judgment, evidence No. 25-1, evidence No. 45, and evidence No. 25, together with the purport of the entire pleadings. The above assertion that the crew member was on a different premise is without merit without need to further examine it.

(1) The Plaintiff posted a letter of apology against investors after the deceased’s death. According to the foregoing, from May 2018 to September 2018, the Plaintiff obtained considerable benefits by doing crypt trade with the deceased, and from September 2018, the Plaintiff appears to have commenced a trade with the deceased from around September 2018. However, the time of transmission of each of the instant transmission details is between May 12, 2018 and July 22, 2018, there is a possibility that all of the transactions under each of the instant agreements have been performed normally.

I introduced 'YE' through Twits, and at that time, I would be able to supply 'Y's ‘Y' which has caused investors' interest in the market through the connection of China D, 'Y'.After that, I have received the supply of 'Y' under good condition that investors' interest is higher than 'Y'.In the past, 'Y' has become damp, and 'Y' has increased the trust of low-income investors.However, it has been distributed in September, unlike SP, different from the SP, and again, on October 3, 197, I have requested E Representative to prepare a refund contract specifying the terms and conditions of refund, but have not been reliance on the request of China's head office.

(2) On November 23, 2018, the Plaintiff stated to the deceased that “Admont????????????????????????’s, there is a possibility that the Deceased fulfilled most of its duty to deliver a quota chain to the Plaintiff until September 2018.

(3) On September 13, 2018, the Deceased remitted KRW 100,00,000 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not give any particular explanation as to the circumstances in which the Deceased received the said money from the Deceased. As so argued by the Defendants, it may be difficult to deem that the Deceased paid KRW 100,000,000 in lieu of the remaining coding delivery obligation against the Plaintiff.

(4) If the Deceased did not properly perform the obligations under each of the instant transaction agreements, it is not reasonably explained that the Plaintiff continued to enter into a coding transaction agreement with the Deceased and further transmitted her margin to the Deceased. The investment risk is very high. The Plaintiff and the Deceased did not form a mutual trust relationship between the time of the initial transmission of each of the instant case immediately following the occurrence of online Messenger around May 10, 2018, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is more so more so in that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to enter into the Republic of Korea at the time, chain, etc.

(5) The Plaintiff asserts that the Deceased did not perform his/her obligations under each of the instant transaction agreements on the grounds of the telephone call recording (No. 42 and 43 evidence) dated 10, 222, and November 24, 2018, which had been between the Deceased and another investor AB, on the ground that: (a) AB demanded payment of encryption to the Deceased; and (b) the Deceased did so; (c) it is difficult to readily conclude that the Deceased did not perform his/her obligations to the Plaintiff solely because all of the above recordings were the content that AB urged the Deceased to pay encryption; and (d) in the case of telephone call on November 24, 2018, the Plaintiff began to change the Deceased to AB, and as seen thereafter, the Plaintiff appears to have been in a position to distribute and return crypt with the Deceased; and (e) thereafter, AB filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit.

2) Determination as to the claim for return of interest pursuant to the agreement

A) As seen in the preceding 1-B(b), the Plaintiff and the Deceased appears to have discussed how to determine the crypted exchange rate when the crypted exchange rate was returned from the Chinese customer on November 3, 2018 on the basis of the Kakakao Stockholm dialogue. Moreover, according to each description of the evidence Nos. 19 and 29, the Plaintiff, the Deceased, and the Deceased, and the AB, AC, AD, AE (the above 4 persons were received from the investors in operating their respective joint purchase rooms (hereinafter referred to as “sypted ones”), as the money received from the investors, appears to have been sold lower than the Plaintiff in the joint purchase of the deceased through the Plaintiff, as the money received from the investors in the joint purchase room (hereinafter referred to as “AB, etc.”) is recognized in relation to the issue of returning the crypted from the Chinese trading office on November 28, 2018.

○ 2018. 11. 28. 11:13경"이야기 잘 되고 있으니 한시름 놓으셔도 됩니다. 추가적인 협의내용 있으면 실시간으로 전달 드리겠습니다"○ 2018. 11. 29. 20:18경"우선 내일 40,000ETH 지급 확정 받았습니다. D에서 내일 저녁쯤 지급 가능하다고 하고 저도 내일 늦게까지 일정이 있어서 귀국 시간이 조금 늦어졌습니다. 한국은 토요일 오후 3시경 도착하며, 도착하는대로 배부 시작하면 오후 4시-5시경으로 분배 마무리 될 것으로 예상합니다. 베이징에서 바로 배부하는 것도 생각해보고 협의해봤으나 D에서 트랜젝션으로나마 노출되는걸 꺼려하는 것 같아 제가 한국에 도착한 후 AF으로 간단하게 옮기는 작업 후 진행합니다. 어차피 여기 계신 리셀러분들이야 이제 D 정체에 대해서는 다들 아실테니 이더 분배(해) 나가면서 트랜젝션 내역 투명하게 공개할 것입니다. 그동안 너무 마음고생 많으셨습니다. 오늘 내일중으로 토요일 오후 4시-5시경 분배 공지하시고 분배량에 대해서 논의하시면 되겠습니다."○ 2018. 11. 29. 20:207"제가 책임 지겠습니다. 이번에 못 나가면 제 집 팔아서라도 분배합니다 ㅎㅎ"○ 2018. 11. 30. 15:55경"내일 3시 도착입니다. 대표님, 저도 참석하도록 하겠습니다. 먼저 자리하고 계시면 최대한 빠르게 준비하고 가도록 하겠습니다."○ 2018. 11. 30. 21:57 경"이더 방금 받았습니다^^ 마음 놓으셔도 되겠습니다"

B) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the aforementioned facts and the evidence Nos. 4 and 19 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the deceased agreed to return the interest rate to the Plaintiff on November 2018, as alleged by the Plaintiff, based on the aforementioned facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) Even based on the conversation content of the instant group or reading room, the Deceased only expressed that he would distribute 40,000 fingers, and there was no entirely specified whether to distribute the volume to anyone among the multiple participants in the group or reading room. In addition, there was no mentioning mentioning that the volume of the divers to be returned by the Deceased reflects the preservation of the market price due to the decline in the interest rate.

(2) On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff stated, unlike AB, etc. demanding the return of the E president (the deceased) and the Plaintiff, “AC, AD, AE, and AB president of the instant organization or reading room shall have a 4-minute thickness of 4 minutes,” and on November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff stated, “I seem to have the volume of sending the quantity to the low-end address causing a refund by no later than the date of internal return, to the low-end address.”

(3) On November 29, 2018, from around 20:09 to around 20:17, the Plaintiff and the Deceased made a conversation with the following contents. The Deceased, upon having received prior confirmation on the official announcement to be made before the instant organization’s rooms, made an official announcement to the effect that, around November 29, 2018, the payment of 40,000 interest rate was confirmed on the instant organization’s reading room with the same content.

○ 원고: "토요일날 도착하자마자 배부하겠다고"○ 망인: "네 알겠습니다 형님ㅎㅎ"○ 원고: "공항도착 시간하고 알려주면서 걱정하지 말라고"○ 원고: "사람들이 질문 좀 할 거 같아. 질문하면 답변 좀 간단하게 해줘. 진짜 걱정하지 말라고",○ 원고: "토요일 도착하고 바로 배부 시작하겠다고"○ 원고: "형은 사람들 환불 주소 좀 받아둘게"○ 원고: "쿼크는 환불배부를 어찌할지 형이 고민 좀 해볼게 쿼크는 제일 마지막에 환불하자 일요일날 하던가"○ 원고: "한국 도착해서 의논하고"○ 망인: 망인이 같은 날 20:18경 공지한 내용과 동일한 내용을 보내면서 "이렇게 공지 하겠습니다 형님

(4) In addition to the facts described in paragraphs (1) through (3) above, the Plaintiff’s introduction of the Deceased to AB, etc. upon receiving commission fees, the Plaintiff appears to have been in the position of distributing and returning ions to AB, etc. along with the Deceased, and it seems that the Plaintiff did not have been in the same position as AB, etc. in the group or reading room of the instant case.

(5) As seen in the foregoing 1, the details of the transmission of each of the instant transmissions are not deemed to be the details transmitted by the Plaintiff to the Deceased, and it is difficult to recognize that the transaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Deceased was concluded under the terms and conditions of transaction in the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the part for which transmission was confirmed. In addition, even if such transaction agreement existed, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Deceased did not perform his/her obligation. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the Deceased agreed on the return of interest to the Plaintiff on November 2018.

C) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Determination on the assertion of unjust enrichment return claim

A) Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes loss to the other person shall return such benefit.” In the case of so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties makes a certain benefit at his/her own will and claims the return of the benefit for which no legal ground exists, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground exists in the case of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018).

B) As seen in the preceding Paragraph 1, the part of the transmission content of each of the instant transmission content is not confirmed to have been transmitted to the deceased. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion of unjust enrichment is without merit.

Next, the transmission content of the Plaintiff is deemed to have been transmitted to the Deceased. As to this, it is difficult to deem that each transaction agreement was concluded under the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, the existence of each transaction agreement cannot be readily concluded that the Deceased immediately obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the interest transmitted by the Deceased. Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is a possibility that a transaction agreement was concluded between the parties, and the possibility that the Deceased fully performed his/her obligations to the Plaintiff cannot be ruled out. Even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court were examined, it is insufficient to find that the Deceased was able to obtain unjust enrichment by receiving the above interest from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

C) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Determination on the conjunctive claim

1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier and the statements in Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 21 through 26, and Eul evidence No. 13-2, each of the following facts: (i) around 02:45 on May 12, 2018, immediately after the occurrence of the first transmission of the instant case, 80 bitrasium (which shall be accurately deducted from the fees) including 740 bitrasium transmitted by the deceased, was transmitted to Telecommunication, a Chinese Cding Exchange, via other electronic walletss of the deceased; (ii) around 12:24 on the same day, 64 bitcocos (around 12:20,000) were exchanged in Korean won and transferred to a Vbank account (W) account in the name of the deceased; and (iii) around 12:18,200 on the date of the instant transmission of the details of the instant case’s transmission, the instant organization did not have any other large contact with the deceased’s account in U.S. 1218.

2) However, as seen below, it is not sufficient to recognize that the deceased, with the intent to acquire the identity of the deceased, received an interest from the plaintiff, solely based on the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the tort.

A) There is no evidence to confirm how the interest rates transmitted to T was traded immediately after the occurrence of the first transmission content of the instant case, and how the interest rates transmitted according to the remaining transmission details have been traded.

B) As seen in the above A. 1, it is difficult to readily conclude that the transmission content of the instant transmission content among the transmission content was the content transmitted to the deceased by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to recognize that each of the instant transaction agreements was concluded with the terms and conditions of transaction in the Plaintiff’s assertion. Furthermore, even if each of the instant transaction agreements existed, the possibility that the deceased would have discharged his/her obligation cannot be ruled out.

C) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 29, it is recognized that AB was subject to a disposition without suspicion (defluence of evidence) on the ground that it was not directly related to the details of each transmission of this case from June 15, 2018 to September 2, 2018, and that it was not returned to the 11,413.37 Earbium (mb. 5,398,035,000) that was sent five times from September 2, 2018, and that the plaintiff was accused of fraud (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2019 type No. 50108), and that "AB was transmitted to the deceased." However, the above accusation case was not directly related to the details of each transmission of this case, and it was not possible to acknowledge the deceased's assertion that the deceased died was not reflected in the investigation result, and thus it is difficult to recognize the deceased's fraud as it is as it is.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned conjunctive claim is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

It is difficult to recognize that the deceased had borne each of the above claims against the Plaintiff at the time of the death of the deceased. Therefore, on a different premise, the primary and conjunctive claims against the Defendants of the deceased against the Defendants are without merit without any further review.

4. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and deputy judge

Judges Park Jae-ap

Enforcement Decree of the Judge

1) Even if multiple claims are mutually compatible, a party may file a claim in a primary and preliminary manner to the effect that the party files a claim by attaching the order of the trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da48888, Jun. 29, 2007). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is determined in the order sought by the Plaintiff.

2) The plaintiff asserted that this court excluded the part concerning the five and six transmissions in the first instance trial (the plaintiff's claim and the ground for the claim as of September 18, 2020), and accordingly, the Nos. 5 through 11 of the above table are as set forth in the Nos. 7 through 13 in the first instance trial, respectively.

A person shall be appointed.