beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.17 2020나16890

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The facts identical to those stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the “Cause of Claim” and the facts that D died with Defendant B and Defendant C, who was his wife on January 14, 2019, may be recognized by each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1 and 2, respectively, without dispute between the parties or by the parties.

2. Assertion and determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendants are obligated to pay each of the money listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff according to their respective inheritance shares, barring any special circumstances.

B. On March 7, 2019, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants had a duty to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim only within the scope of inherited property, on the grounds that they received reports from the above court on April 15, 2019, by filing an application for a limited acceptance of inheritance with the Daejeon Family Court 2019Ra395 on March 7, 2019. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants had a duty to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the legal simple acceptance pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act takes effect on April 15, 2019, on the grounds that the Defendants concealed or fraudulently consumed D’s retirement allowance claims or did not intentionally enter them in the inventory. (2) The Defendants’ judgment was rendered on April 15, 2019 with the Daejeon Family Court 2019Mo395, which had not stated D’s list on March 7, 2019.

However, the Defendants received D’ retirement pay.

The Defendants concealed inherited property solely on the sole ground that they did not notify the Plaintiff thereof.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants were either unlawfully consumed or unlawfully consumed, and according to each description of the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, the retirement pay still remains in the Defendants’ account.