Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm State Won, Attorneys Hong Sung-eng et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

January 11, 2012

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kahap123850 Decided April 23, 2010

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na46628 Decided October 14, 2010

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da98948 Decided April 28, 2011

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 132,198,290 won with 5% interest per annum from August 4, 2010 to February 10, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed.

3. After remand, the plaintiff's claim added in the trial is dismissed.

4. 30% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 70% by the Defendant respectively.

5. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 238,22,052 won and 217,164,969 won among them, and 21,057,083 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the judgment of the court of first instance to the day of full payment.

[원고는 환송 후 당심에 이르러 ① 원고가 양수한 소외 1의 피고에 대한 보관금채권 원금 137,448,290원, ② 이에 대한 2008. 3. 1.부터 이 사건 소장 송달일인 2009. 12. 17.까지 연 5%의 이율에 의한 지연손해금 12,055,359원, ③ 원고가 양수한 소외 1의 피고에 대한 28,900,578원의 손해배상채권(피고가 위 보관금의 반환을 지체함으로써 소외 1이 서울남부지방법원 2007가단25609호 판결 에 따라 원고에게 지급하여야 할 원고의 유류분 56,110,166원의 지급을 지체하여 입은 위 유류분에 대한 2007. 5. 16.부터 2009. 12. 17.까지 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 28,900,578원 상당의 특별손해), ④ 원고가 양수한 소외 1의 피고에 대한 375만 원의 손해배상채권{피고가 위 보관금의 반환을 지체함으로써 소외 1이 서울고등법원 2008나33087호, 2008나33094호(병합) 사건에서의 청구인낙조서에 따라 원고에게 지급하여야 할 5,000만 원의 지급을 지체하여 입은 위 5,000만 원에 대한 2008. 6. 1.부터 2009. 12. 17.까지 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 375만 원 상당의 특별손해}, ⑤ 피고의 수용보상금 중 원고 상속지분 지급액 6,110,164원{피고의 수용보상금 중 원고 상속지분 112,220,330원 가운데 서울고등법원 2008나33087호, 2008나33094호(병합) 사건에서의 화해권고결정에 따라 피고가 지급한 5,000만 원과 원고가 피고 소유 부동산에 대한 부동산강제경매절차에서 유류분으로 배당받은 56,110,166원을 공제한 나머지 6,110,164원}, ⑥ 이에 대한 2005. 12. 2.부터 2010. 3. 31.까지 연 5%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 1,322,473원, ⑦ 위 화해권고결정에 따라 받은 5,000만 원에 대한 2005. 12. 2.부터 2009. 10. 30.까지 연 5%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 9,780,821원, ⑧ 위 배당금 56,110,166원에 대한 2005. 12. 2.부터 2009. 6. 19.까지 연 5%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 9,953,789원 등 합계 209,321,474원(원고는 2011. 11. 25.자 청구취지변경서의 변경된 청구취지에 238,222,052원으로 기재하였으나, 이는 위 ③번 원고가 양수한 소외 1의 피고에 대한 28,900,578원의 손해배상채권을 중복하여 계산하였기 때문이다)과 그 중 188,264,391원(= ①번 137,448,290원 + ②번 12,055,359원 + ③번 28,900,578원 + ④번 375만 원 + ⑤번 6,110,164원, 원고는 2011. 11. 25.자 청구취지변경서의 변경된 청구취지에 217,164,969원으로 기재하였으나, 이는 위 ③번 손해배상채권을 중복하여 계산하였기 때문이다)에 대하여는 이 사건 소장 송달 다음날부터, 21,057,083원(= ⑥번 1,322,473원 + ⑦번 9,780,821원 + ⑧번 9,953,789원)에 대하여는 제1심 판결 선고 다음날부터 각 다 갚는 날까지 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금을 구하고 있는바, 그 중 ①번 청구는 환송 전 당심에서 주위적 청구의 일부로서, ⑤번, ⑥번, ⑦번, ⑧번 청구는 환송 전 당심에서 예비적 청구의 일부로서 구하던 것(청구의 성질상 실질적으로는 단순병합청구에 해당한다)을 환송 후 당심에 이르러 단순병합청구로 변경한 것이고, 한편 ②번, ④번 청구는 환송 전 당심에서 주위적 청구의 일부로서, ③번 청구는 환송 전 당심에서 주위적 청구 일부와 예비적 청구의 일부로서 구하였으나 환송 전 당심에서 청구가 기각되고 그에 대한 원고의 상고도 기각되어 원고 패소로 확정된 것과 같은 청구를 원고가 환송 후 당심에서 새로이 추가한 것이다]

○ Plaintiff

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff seeking payment is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won per annum from May 16, 2010 to July 19, 2010 with 10% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. In addition, 166,335,280 won and 20% per annum from the date of the judgment of the first instance to the day of full payment.

○ Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's preliminary claim shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of the trial of the political party after remand;

(a) Request in the first instance;

○○ Main Claim: A claim for the payment of KRW 200 million out of the aggregate of the following claims against the Defendant by Nonparty 1 acquired by the Plaintiff and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment:

(1) The deposited money claim of KRW 147,758,220.

(b) The (14),75,822 won interest rateing to 5% per annum from March 1, 2008 to March 1, 2010.

In the event of delay in the repayment of the above custody money, the damage compensation amounting to KRW 29,925,421 per annum from September 14, 2007 to May 14, 2010, which was incurred by Nonparty 1 due to Nonparty 1’s failure to pay KRW 56,110,166 to the Plaintiff due to the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 207Da25609, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 207Da25609, the damage compensation amounting to KRW 56,110,16.

As the Defendant delayed the return of the above custody amount, Nonparty 1’s damage claim amounting to KRW 112,220,333 per annum from May 2008 to May 2010, for delay damages amounting to KRW 11,222,03 per annum, which was incurred by Nonparty 1 due to Nonparty 1’s failure to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 112,220,333 based on the petitioner’s abortion in the case of Seoul High Court No. 2008Na3087 and 2008Na3094 (Joint).

○ Preliminary Claim: Each of the following claims shall be paid at the rate of 193,502,527 won, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the judgment of the first instance to the date of full payment:

Of the total compensation for acceptance at the 673,322,00 won, the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares of KRW 224,440,660, the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares of KRW 2008Na33087 and KRW 2008Na33094 (Joint) received from the Defendant based on the Seoul High Court’s ruling of recommending reconciliation in the case of Seoul High Court (2008Na33087 and KRW 2008Na33094 (Joint) and the Defendant’s claim for return of KRW 56,110,166, the remainder of KRW 118,330,494, the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares of KRW 118,30,494.

㉳ 피고가 위 보관금의 반환을 지체함에 따라 소외 1이 원고에게 서울남부지방법원 2007가단25609호 판결 에 기한 56,110,166원의 지급의무를 이행하지 못하여 소외 1이 입은 위 금원에 대한 2007. 9. 14.부터 2010. 5. 14.까지 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 29,925,421원 상당의 손해배상채권.

㉴ 전체 수용보상금 중 원고 상속지분 224,440,660원에 대한 수용보상금 지급일인 2005. 12. 1.부터 원고가 위 유류분 상당액을 배당받은 2009. 6. 19.까지 연 5%의 비율에 의한 법정이자 38,934,219원과 원고의 위 상속지분액에서 위 유류분 상당액을 공제한 나머지 168,330,494원에 대한 2009. 6. 20.부터 2010년 3월 말까지 9개월 동안 연 5%의 비율에 의한 법정이자 6,312,393원의 지급청구권.

○ Judgment of the first instance court

주위적 청구는 기각되고, 예비적 청구 가운데 ㉲청구 중 6,110,164원(피고의 수용보상금 중 원고 상속지분 상당액 112,220,330원에서 위 화해권고결정에 기한 5,000만 원과 위 유류분 상당액 56,110,166원을 공제한 나머지 금원), ㉴청구 중 위 6,110,164원에 대한 2005. 12. 2.부터 2010. 3. 31.까지 연 5%의 비율에 의한 법정이자 1,322,473원, 위 화해권고결정에 기한 5,000만 원에 대한 2005. 12. 2.부터 2009. 10. 30.까지 연 5%의 비율에 의한 법정이자 9,780,821원, 위 유류분 상당액 56,110,166원에 대한 2005. 12. 2.부터 2009. 6. 19.까지 연 5%의 비율에 의한 법정이자 9,953,789원 등 합계 27,167,247원(= 6,110,164원 + 1,322,473원 + 9,780,821원 + 9,953,789원)과 이에 대한 제1심 판결 선고일부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금을 구하는 부분만 인용되고, 나머지 예비적 청구는 기각되었다.

B. Claim in the trial before remand

○ Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff seeking payment under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won per annum from May 16, 2010 to July 19, 2010 with 10% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and shall pay to the plaintiff 16,335,280 won in preliminary amount and 166,335,280 won per annum from the judgment of the court of first instance to the day of complete payment.

○ Change of Primary Claim

From May 16, 2007 to May 16, 2010, the claim against the above 56,110,166 won extended to the damage claim amounting to 33,66,099 won by 20% per annum for three years from May 16, 2010. As the defendant delayed the return of the above custody amount, the defendant reduced the damage claim amounting to 5 million won per annum from May 5, 2008 to May 201, which the non-party 1 suffered from the non-party 1's failure to perform the obligation to pay 50 million won per annum for the plaintiff due to the delay in the return of the custody amount.

○ Judgment before remanding the case

Among the plaintiff's main claims, 137,448,290 won among the above claim and 5% interest per annum from August 4, 2010 to October 14, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal against the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim were dismissed.

C. The appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant against the judgment of the court before the remand and the appeal by the Supreme Court is partially reversed and remanded.

The plaintiff and the defendant appealed against each party in the judgment before remand. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and reversed and remanded the part against the defendant in the judgment before remanding the defendant's appeal, i.e., the part against the defendant in the judgment before remanding the case, i.e., the plaintiff's main claim, 137,448,290 won and 5% per annum from August 4, 2010 to October 14, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full repayment.

As a result, all parts of the plaintiff's main claim, except the parts destroyed and remanded as well as the parts cited in the first instance among the conjunctive claims, were determined to be against the plaintiff.

D. Defendant’s incidental appeal

한편 피고는 제1심 판결 중 피고 패소 부분, 즉 원고의 예비적 청구 가운데 ㉲, ㉴청구 중 일부 인용된 부분에 대해서 추완항소를 하였다.

E. Plaintiff’s claim added from the trial after remand

On the other hand, the plaintiff added claims 2, 3, and 4 to the claim that overlap with the part of the previous plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim that became final and conclusive against the plaintiff as seen above.

F. Sub-decision

따라서 환송 후 당심의 심판범위는 i) 대법원에서 파기환송된, 환송 전 당심의 주위적 청구 중 인용 부분, 즉 위 ㉮청구 중 137,448,290원과 이에 대하여 2010. 8. 4.부터 2010. 10. 14.까지 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 20%의 각 비율에 금원의 지급을 구하는 부분(청구취지 기재 ①번 청구의 원금과 그에 대한 일부 지연손해금), ii) 피고의 추완항소가 적법한 경우 제1심 판결 중 피고 패소 부분 즉, 원고의 예비적 청구의 ㉲, ㉴청구 중 제1심에서 일부 인용된 부분(청구취지 기재 ⑤, ⑥, ⑦, ⑧번 청구), iii) 환송 후 당심에서 원고가 새로이 추가한 청구(청구취지 기재 ②, ③, ④번 청구)로 한정된다.

2. Whether the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, he may file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative simply knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the original copy of the judgment was inspected or received by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da800

According to the records, although the first instance court ordered the Plaintiff to correct address due to the addressee’s unknown failure, the Plaintiff immediately filed an application for service by public notice. Accordingly, the first instance court served the Defendant with the documents, such as a written complaint and the date of pleading, without any special delivery, as to the Plaintiff’s failure to serve the said documents by public notice. On April 23, 2010, when the Defendant did not appear, it declared that the Defendant partly accepted the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim and dismissed the Defendant’s primary claim and the remainder of the conjunctive claim, and the original judgment was served by public notice. The original judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. Upon the Plaintiff’s filing of an appeal regarding the first instance judgment, the court of first instance sent the documents, such as a duplicate of the petition of appeal and the date of pleading before remand, to the Defendant by public notice, and affirmed the Defendant’s remaining judgment by public notice on October 14, 2010, and remanded the original judgment by public notice to the Defendant on the same date as the judgment of the first instance court was rendered by public notice.

As to this, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit was pending in Korea at the time of the first instance trial, it would have intentionally avoided the receipt of the complaint, etc. of this case and would have been proceeded by the service by public notice even before the remand of the lawsuit, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion was unlawful. However, even if the Defendant was in Korea at the time of the first instance trial proceeding, it is difficult to recognize that the result of the fact inquiry to the Seoul Immigration Office of the first instance after remand alone was aware of the fact that the lawsuit of this case was pending at the time of the first instance trial proceeding, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless

3. Basic facts

【Unsatisfy-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sats

A. On October 16, 2001, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party 1 are the non-party 2's children, and the non-party 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of testamentary gift dated December 19, 2001, as to each of the real estate of this case on December 19, 2001, on the part of the defendant and the non-party 1, 1/2 shares, which are one-half shares of his own possession among the forest (number omitted) 21,80 square meters (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). The non-party 2 died on December 19, 2001, the defendant and the non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the one-fourth share of each of the real estate of this case on January 2, 2002 according to the testament of this case.

B. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the non-party 1 in Seoul Central District Court No. 2003Gahap5059, 2003Gahap44153 (combined) and sought the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the recovery of inheritance with respect to each of the 1/12 shares of the real estate in this case as the claim for the recovery of inheritance, and sought the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the return of each of the 1/24 shares of the real estate in this case as the claim for the recovery of inheritance. The above court dismissed the plaintiff's main claim and declared that it accepted the conjunctive claim.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed in Seoul High Court No. 2005Na5401, 2005Na5418 (combined). On November 17, 2005, the said court revoked the first instance judgment and ordered Nonparty 1 and the Defendant to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the instant real estate, based on inheritance recovery.

D. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 and Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da75019, 2005Da75026 (combined) and the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that reversed and remanded the above judgment of the court below on February 28, 2008.

E. On December 2, 2005, Nonparty 1 received totaling KRW 673,322,000 of the acceptance compensation for Nonparty 1 and the Defendant’s share out of the instant real estate on December 2, 2005 (i.e., Nonparty 1’s share + KRW 336,61,661,000 + Defendant’s share + KRW 336,661,000). On the same day, Nonparty 1 transferred the Defendant’s acceptance compensation for the Defendant’s share and deposited it with KRW 336,661,00 out of the payment for his share.

F. The plaintiff, separate from the above lawsuit, filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance among the defendant's expropriation compensation by Suwon District Court 2007Da79660, and sentenced on February 14, 2008 to the effect that "the defendant shall pay 56,110,166 won to the plaintiff, and 5% per annum from December 2, 2005 to January 3, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and the judgment became final and conclusive, the plaintiff filed a compulsory auction with Sungwon District Court 2008Da10312 around 208, and received 206DaDa167165 decided on June 16, 207 from the above court 205 to the 206Da167165 decided June 27, 2007.

G. Meanwhile, in the case of Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2008Na33087, 2008Na33094, which was proceeding after the case was remanded to the Supreme Court No. 2005Da75019, 2005Da75026 (combined), Nonparty 1 was the appellant, and the decision of recommending reconciliation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant became final and conclusive as follows, which was rendered by the competent court on September 7, 2009.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, recognize that the instant will has no effect, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are equal successors to Nonparty 2. ② The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million (in the event that the instant will is null and void, the amount calculated by subtracting some of the capital gains tax and resident tax, which the Defendant seems to have paid on behalf of the Plaintiff, from the amount, excluding the legal reserve of inheritance, out of the inheritance to be returned to the Plaintiff), not later than October 30, 2009. If the Defendant fails to pay the said money by the payment date, the unpaid amount shall be paid by adding damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the above payment date until the day of full payment. ③ The Plaintiff and the Defendant confirm that the said contract of assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 was null and void. ④ The Plaintiff’s claim is withdrawn, and the Defendant consents thereto

H. On October 12, 2009, Nonparty 1 transferred KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, such as the deposit money claim against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, who was delegated by Nonparty 1 with the authority to notify the transfer of the claim, applied for service by publication of the notice of the transfer of claim to Seoul Central District Court 2010Kao3585, and accordingly, the notification of the transfer of claim reached the Defendant’s service by publication on August 3, 2010.

4. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) Money deposited (claim No. 1)

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 137,448,290 won and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, since the plaintiff acquired the claim of KRW 137,448,290 against the defendant of this case.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8-1 through 8-1 and all pleadings, it is acknowledged that the defendant borrowed KRW 4,1450,00 from non-party 1 to December 28, 2005 to non-party 1, and transferred KRW 41,48,290,00 to non-party 1, the sum of KRW 500,000 from December 6, 2005 to February 28, 2008, and the sum of KRW 41,48,60 (i.e., the sum of KRW 14,50,000 transferred to non-party 26,617,690) to non-party 5, which was transferred to non-party 25,000 won to non-party 30,000 won for compulsory auction on behalf of non-party 2, which was transferred to the non-party 1.3,500,000 won.

Therefore, Nonparty 1 had a claim for the repayment of KRW 132,198,290 (=30 million - KRW 162,551,710 (i.e., KRW 41,00 million - KRW 41,098,290 - KRW 237,80,000) - KRW 5250,00) against the Defendant. As seen in the facts based on the facts, the Plaintiff acquired the aforementioned claim from Nonparty 1. As such, the Defendant, from August 4, 2010, the following day when the notice of assignment of the above claim was delivered to the Defendant, had the obligation to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 132,198,290 to KRW 132,00 and KRW 132,198,290 from the following day when the notice of assignment of claim was delivered to the Defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the sum of the gift tax and the acquisition tax on the real estate of this case paid by the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1 should be deducted from the above custody amount, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid the aggregate of KRW 7,855,00 on behalf of the non-party 1 (No. 4, which was submitted by the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1, is the receipt of the non-party 1's transfer income tax and the resident tax accordingly, and such transfer income tax and the resident tax are already included in the calculation of the amount that the defendant remitted to the non-party 1).

In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant should deduct the total amount of KRW 20 million, including the attorney fees and stamp fees for the defendant and the non-party 1, since all of the costs of lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and the non-party 1, the Seoul Central District Court 2003Gahap509, 2003Gahap44153 (combined) and the case of claim for nullity of will and recovery of inheritance, the appellate court, and the appeal court, and the defendant's payment of KRW 20 million for the defendant and the non-party 1. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid the above costs of lawsuit on behalf of the non-party 1, the defendant's assertion on this is without merit

The defendant asserts that the sum of KRW 5,50,000 paid to the non-party 1 from July 2002 to November 2005, prior to the transfer of KRW 300,000 from the non-party 1, the defendant claimed that the above amount should be deducted from the above amount of custody. According to the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, the defendant remitted the sum of KRW 5,455,00 to the non-party 1 from July 2002 to November 2005 as above, but it is difficult to recognize that the non-party 1 was liable to return the above amount of KRW 5,550,00 to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion on the premise that the non-party 1 was liable to return the above amount of KRW 5,455,00,00

The defendant asserts that the defendant should deduct 60 million won in total from the above custody amount of 3 vehicles transferred to the non-party 1. According to the statements in Eul evidence 6-1, 2, and 3, the defendant's transfer of the above 60 million won in total to the non-party 1 of the above custody amount. According to the non-party 1's evidence 6-1, 2, and 3, the defendant's obligation to pay the above 60 million won in total to the non-party 1 of November 24, 1998, the non-party 1 of the above 1993-type Lart Lart car of July 7, 200, and the non-party 1 of the 198-type SM 520 car around June 7, 200, respectively, and the non-party 1 of the above 1's obligation to pay the above 60 million won in total to the defendant is without merit.

Although the defendant alleged that the amount of KRW 29 million lent to the deceased non-party 2 should be deducted from the above amount of custody, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant lent KRW 29 million to the deceased non-party 2 only by the statement of the evidence No. 7, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

(b) Damages for delay and damage claim related to the amount of custody (the claims stated in the claims, two, three, and four);

The plaintiff is obligated to pay 12,055,359 won per annum from March 1, 2008 to December 17, 2009, the delivery date of the complaint of this case to non-party 1. The non-party 1 is obligated to pay 12,05,359 won per annum to non-party 1, and the non-party 1 is obligated to pay 56,10,166 won per annum from Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Da25609 decided May 16, 207 to non-party 1, and the non-party 208Na33087, 208 or 33094 (Joint) to the non-party 2,50,500 won per annum from the plaintiff's appeal to the non-party 2,500 won per annum of the above damages claim of this case to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2,507% per annum of the above damages claim of this case to 2, 507.75% per annum.

However, in the previous trial before the plaintiff's remand, the plaintiff's damage claim against the non-party 1 that was acquired by the non-party 1 from the non-party 1 was dismissed at the above 14,775,82 won per annum from March 1, 2008 to March 1, 2010, and the damages claim equivalent to 14,775,82 won per annum from Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007DaGa25609 decided May 16, 2007 and the above damages claim against the non-party 1 for delay of the duty to pay KRW 56,110,166 was dismissed for 33,66,09 won per annum from May 16, 201 to the above damages claim against the non-party 1, and the damages claim against the non-party 1 was dismissed for 2008 or 3050,000 won per annum of the previous appeal.

(c) A claim for return, etc. equivalent to the plaintiff's inheritance share (5, (6), (7), and (8) of compensation for confinement;

Of the Defendant’s expropriation compensation amounting to KRW 36,61,00 received by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares amounting to KRW 12,220,330. Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na33087, 2008Na33094 (Joint), the Defendant paid KRW 56,110,166 out of the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares. The Defendant paid KRW 6,110,164 out of the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares amounting to KRW 6,220,30 - KRW 5,000, KRW 200, KRW 2050, KRW 2050, KRW 2065, KRW 200, KRW 965, KRW 205, KRW 965, KRW 2005, KRW 965, KRW 205, KRW 965, KRW 2005, KRW 56,000, KRW 975,2005.

Under basic facts, since the will of this case is null and void, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 12,220,30 won equivalent to the plaintiff's shares in the amount of compensation for expropriation to the plaintiff 5,110,166 won remaining after deducting the amount equivalent to the legal reserve already paid to the plaintiff 5,110,166 won, and 6,110,164 won from December 2, 2005 to March 31, 201, as the plaintiff seeks, 1,32,473 won [6,10,164 x 5% per annum 205% per annum 65% per annum (4+120/365%) x 205% per annum of the Civil Act x 360% per annum of the plaintiff's total amount of compensation for expropriation to the plaintiff 5,000 won under the above settlement recommendation x 205% per annum 360% per annum of the Civil Act.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 132,198,290 as well as the amount of KRW 27,167,247 as the amount of KRW 159,365,537 as the amount of KRW 132,198,290 as well as the amount of KRW 132,198,290 as the amount of KRW 20% as to the amount of KRW 159,365,537 as well as the amount of KRW 132,198,290 as to the amount of KRW 27,167 as of August 4, 2010 to February 10, 2012; and the damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% as of KRW 27,167,247 as of April 23,

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's above claim is unfair because it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the settlement recommendation decision dated September 7, 2009, which became final and conclusive in Seoul High Court No. 2008Na33087, 2008Na33094 (Joint), 2009. However, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and the non-party 1 as Seoul Central District Court No. 2003Da5059, 2003 44153 (Joint), and the plaintiff's claim for recovery of inheritance due to invalidity of will of this case was filed primarily, and the plaintiff's claim for recovery of inheritance as 1/12 shares of this case was sought as 1/24 shares of this case, and the plaintiff's claim for recovery of inheritance was rejected in the first instance court and the plaintiff's claim for recovery of inheritance as 1/24 shares of this case was rejected in the second instance court's first instance judgment and the plaintiff's claim for recovery of inheritance as 1/3000 shares of this case.

5. Revocation of an application for change of the purport of the claim filed on January 16, 2012 by the Plaintiff

On January 16, 2012, 2012, after the plaintiff was remanded, the plaintiff filed an application for change with the purport that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 315,982,656 won and KRW 217,164,969 at a rate of 20% per annum for KRW 21,057,083 from the day following the judgment of the court of first instance to the day of full payment." This is an application for change with the purport that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 315,982,656 won and KRW 217,164,969, and to KRW 21,083 at a rate of 20% per annum from the day after the judgment of first instance is rendered

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for reasons. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which differs from this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted, and the payment of the money is revoked, and the remaining part in the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim added in the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)