beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단214708

양수금

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. 60,000,000 won and, as regards the Defendant Newjin Industry:

B. The defendant corporation.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Newjin Co., Ltd. for the industry

(a)the reasons for the claim and subsequent description of the reasons for the claim;

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment as to the remainder of the Defendants’ claims was as follows; the deceased on August 24, 2012; the deceased on August 24, 2012; the deceased on the ground of the claim; the Defendant A, B, and C filed a report on an inheritance-limited approval with the Busan Family Court 2012-Ma3514; the deceased on December 12, 2012; the deceased on November 20, 2013; the Defendant A, G, H, and I filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance with the Busan Family Court 2013-Ma3950 on January 7, 2014; and the Defendant D filed a report on the succession-limited approval with the Busan Family Court 2013-Ma3949 on January 10, 2014; and the purport of the foregoing report was either not covered by the Plaintiff and the Defendant C1 through C1, as a whole, or included a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts, among the 60 million won in collaboration with the new industry of the defendant corporation, the defendant Eul is obligated to pay 25,714,286 won (60 million won x 3/7, and less than won x less than 3/7) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17,142,857 won (each 60 million won x 2/7, and less than won) and each of them within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, and the defendant Eul is obligated to pay the damages for delay at the rate of 17,142,857 won (each 60 million won x 2/7, and less than won) and each of them within the scope of the property inherited from the network E. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18440, May 21, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 18500, Aug. 26, 2004>

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted on the grounds of the reasoning.