beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.09.09 2016가단10042

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s High Government Branch for Plaintiff B and C as the Defendant’s High Government Branch for Plaintiff B and C on October 12, 2015 No. 2015 Ghana26 on October 12, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the network with respect to KRW 2,658,729, and KRW 2,530,559, respectively, and KRW 29% per annum from July 4, 2015 to the date of full payment, on the ground that the network D died on March 20, 2015.

B. On October 12, 2015, the above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the effect that the amount should be paid as stated in the Defendant’s purport of the claim, and Plaintiff B and C did not file an objection despite being served with each of the above decisions on October 20 and October 22, 2015, and thus, the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive as it is, on October 20, 2015.

On the other hand, the plaintiff A was unable to receive the above decision of performance recommendation, and was sentenced to the judgment citing the defendant's claim against the above A, which became final and conclusive as it is.

C. On the other hand, on June 12, 2015, Plaintiff B and C filed a report to waive D’s inheritance under 2015-Madan8599 with the Jung-gu District Court High Court 2015, and received the said decision on July 29, 2015. On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff A filed a report to accept D’s qualified acceptance of inheritance of property on July 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff B and C, since the plaintiff B and C had already renounced inheritance of D before the defendant received a notice of performance recommendation from the defendant, the above plaintiffs did not bear the debt of inheritance of D.

Therefore, under the premise that the above plaintiffs are the successors of D, the decision of performance recommendation ordering the above plaintiffs to pay credit card claims against D is unlawful.

As to this, the defendant is unable to assert the fact that the above plaintiffs did not respond to the decision of performance recommendation, so long as the decision has become final and conclusive.