beta
Text
1. Defendant E pays to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million within the scope of the property inherited from the network F.
2. This.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant C and D
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a monetary obligee against the networkF. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a fraudulent act, and thus, the amount claimed to the Plaintiff should be revoked. Defendant C and D are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount claimed to the Plaintiff for restitution to its original state. Defendant C and D are obligated to pay to the original state of restitution to the original state.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, each of the money was transferred to Defendant C or Defendant D, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, at the net F’s passbook, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that it was subject to a gift contract beyond this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit without any further review as to other points.
2. Claim against Defendant E
A. Fact-finding 1) The deceased F (Death on January 4, 2016) loaned KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on June 3, 2016, which was the birth day, as of June 3, 2019, to the effect that the due date for repayment was 8.53 million won in the amount of principal as of the date of the closing of argument, and Defendant E is the heir of the deceased F.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, entry of Eul evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant E is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million out of the outstanding principal, upon the Plaintiff’s partial claim.
C. Defendant E’s defense is a defense that Defendant E has received his/her report of qualified acceptance with respect to this, and according to the purport of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the entire pleadings, Defendant E is the heir of the networkF, and Defendant E is recognized to have received the application on February 17, 2016, upon filing an application for the inheritance limited acceptance with the Daegu Family Court on April 26, 2016. Thus, Defendant E’s defense is well-grounded.
Accordingly, according to the theory of the lawsuit, Defendant E is from the net F.