beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), Defendant C, and D are dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 2, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
The plaintiff is a clan consisting of descendants who are 19 years of age for E's 19 years of age for G as a joint ancestor.
B. From around January 18, 2012 to January 18, 2012, Defendant B was the member of the Plaintiff clan, Defendant C was the member of the Plaintiff clan, and Defendant C was the member of the Plaintiff clan, and Defendant D was aware of it with Defendant B.
C. The Defendants: (a) in collusion with Defendant C and D, sold 33058 square meters of H 661 square meters of forests and fields H 66151 square meters, which were kept under the title trust by the Plaintiff, to I; (b) received KRW 800 million from April 10, 2008; and (c) sold I the remainder of 33093 square meters of the above forests and fields to I for KRW 600 million on November 5, 2009; (c) received KRW 10 million of the down payment on the same day; and (d) received an agreement for reduction of the purchase price on December 1, 2009 to receive KRW 320 million, and received KRW 1130 million in total from the Plaintiff; and (d) charged the Defendants with embezzlement of KRW 630 million by reporting the settlement of accounts of the Plaintiff’s clan on December 17, 2008; but (e) charged the Defendants with embezzlement of KRW 2600 million in total.3 million.
(2013Gohap6) In an appellate trial on the above judgment (Seoul High Court 2013No364), the prosecutor added the charge of breach of trust of which the Defendants acquired the above money and thereby inflicted damage on the Plaintiff even though the Defendants had the duty to deliver the difference of the above purchase price to the Plaintiff, but the court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal to the effect that the Defendants rendered a judgment of innocence on the charge of breach of trust, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 23, 2014.
On the other hand, the plaintiff clans conduct an extraordinary general meeting on January 14, 2012.