beta
Text
1. Upon the preliminary claim added at the trial, Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiffs each amount of KRW 24,400,000 and each of the said amounts.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this part of the claim is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim added at the trial
A. Even if the instant money was remitted for the purpose of investment as alleged by the Defendants, the Defendants, even though they were willing to invest only KRW 43.2 million from the beginning, i.e., part of the money given to F, i.e., KRW 4., KRW 4.2 million, was invested by the Deceased, or were embezzled by failing to return the remainder of KRW 60.8 million, excluding the money actually invested.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay the deceased’s heir the amount of the instant money as damages.
B. First of all, in the case of Defendant D, only to the nominal owner of the account that received the remittance of the instant money, and thus, the Plaintiff’s preliminary claim against Defendant D based on his tort cannot be accepted.
We examine Defendant C.
First, there is no evidence to recognize that Defendant C had obtained the money of this case by deceiving the Deceased.
However, the fact that Defendant C received money by delivering KRW 43.2 million, which is a part of the instant money to F as investment money, is as seen earlier, and the fact that Defendant C paid KRW 12 million out of the remainder of the money to G (the former name: I) who is a woman of the Deceased, is not a dispute between the parties.
Meanwhile, Defendant C also asserted that the remainder of KRW 48,88 million, except this, was used as an incidental expense for investment, but there is no evidence supporting this, and rather, it can only be known that it was disbursed for personal use irrelevant to investment according to the result of each reply of the court of first instance.
Therefore, Defendant C did not spend the money received from the Deceased as investment money for the actual purpose of investment money.