대여금
1. The defendant shall not exceed KRW 54,925,570 and KRW 30,000 among them to the plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B.
1. On May 17, 2004, B obtained a loan of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff (18% per annum of agreed damages), and on August 5, 2014, the total amount of the principal and interest of the loan was 54,925,570 as of August 5, 2014, and on August 28, 2009, prior to the filing date of the instant lawsuit, the network B died. The Defendant, as the only heir of the network B, filed a special approval report on the deceased B’s inheritance after receiving the copy of the instant complaint, and accepted the report (Ycheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2014Mo1074). It is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) there is no special approval report on the deceased B’s inheritance after receiving the copy of the instant complaint.
Therefore, within the scope of property inherited from the net B, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 54,925,570 won in total of the principal and interest of the loan and 30 million won in total, at the rate of 18% per annum, which is the overdue damages rate from August 6, 2014 to the date of complete payment, from August 6, 2014, which is the day following the day of calculating the total principal and interest
2. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff's claim of this case in this case should be dismissed since the defendant made a qualified acceptance on the deceased's transfer of property B.
On the other hand, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of an obligation, but merely limited to the scope of the liability. As long as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized as the existence of an inherited obligation even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of all the inherited obligation even if the inherited property does not exist or it is insufficient to repay the inherited property. However, since the obligation of an inheritor is of a nature not to enforce compulsory execution against the inherent property of an inheritor, it is necessary to specify the purport that it can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance in order to limit the executory power. Thus, Supreme Court Decision 203Da