beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,922,623 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 20, 201 to July 23, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status C (1923) and D (1929) were married couple, and the Plaintiff (1957), E (1959) and the Defendant (1961) were married couple.
C died on June 22, 2011, and D died on November 26, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as “the network” and “the network”). B.
From the F Bank Account (G) of the network’s withdrawal of deposits, KRW 95,019,707 deposited in the F Bank Account (G), KRW 10,732,097 deposited in the F Bank Account (H) on May 26, 2011, respectively, was withdrawn on May 26, 2011, and KRW 1,90,000 was withdrawn from the F Bank Account (H) on June 20, 201, the date of death of the network (F Bank Account, June 22, 2011) prior to the date of death of the network (hereinafter “instant withdrawal”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 7, 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since the defendant alleged by the plaintiff without the consent of the deceased's body, the defendant bears the damage liability equivalent to the amount of the above withdrawal due to the tort against the deceased's body.
The defendant is obligated to pay 23,922,623 won (=107,651,804 won (=95,019,707 won) + 10,732,097 won 1,90,000 won) ¡¿ 2/9, and to pay damages for delay on the part of the deceased mother's shares in inheritance (3/9) and the part of the deceased mother's shares in inheritance (3/9), which amount to 1/2 of the plaintiff's shares in inheritance when the defendant who is a special beneficiary of excess amount was excluded (i.e., 17,941,967 won (=107,651,804 x 3/9 x 3/9 x 1/2) plus 41,864,590 won (=23,922,623 won, 17,941,967 won).
B. The defendant's assertion that the withdrawal of this case was made with the deceased mother's bank with the consent of the deceased mother, and thus the withdrawal is not unauthorized withdrawal.
Before the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the return of legal reserve of inheritance on the deceased’s property before the instant lawsuit, and had been aware that the withdrawal was made in that procedure, and there was a judgment that reflecteds the assertion. The filing of the instant lawsuit is contrary to the res judicata of the said judgment.