beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.19 2017가단67224

양수금

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant F and G are within the scope of the property inherited from the network K, and Defendant H, I, and J are deceased.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the entire purport of the pleading in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply), No. 1, 2, Eul 1 to 3, Eul 1, 2, and No. 2, the facts of the cause of the claim and the facts of the cause of the claim supplementary to the annexed sheet No. 2 may be acknowledged.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, Defendant F, G, within the scope of the property inherited from the network K, Defendant H, I, and J, within the scope of the property inherited from the network L, Defendant F, G, and Defendant H 7,482,857 won, Defendant H, Defendant I, and J, respectively, and their respective amount of KRW 4,761,90,00 won and each amount of KRW 39,000,000, Defendant B, D, and E, with the duty to pay the annual amount of KRW 26,66,666,66 won, and KRW 7,857, Defendant H, Defendant I, and J, respectively, within the scope of the property inherited from the network M, and the annual amount of KRW 39,00,00,00, KRW 26,000,000 from the following day to the 15th day of November 1, 196 to the 15th day of May 16, 2015.

B. Defendant F, G, H, I, and J asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case against the said Defendants should be dismissed, since there was no inherited property.

On the other hand, the qualified acceptance system merely does not restrict the existence of an obligation, but merely limits the scope of its liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13630, Sept. 13, 2012). The said Defendants’ qualified acceptance does not extinguish the obligation of this case on the ground that the said Defendants performed the qualified acceptance, or restrict the liabilities themselves within the scope of assets acquired by the said Defendants due to inheritance.

The above assertion by other Defendants is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.