beta
(영문) 대구지방법원상주지원 2017.11.01 2017가단1935

구상금

Text

1. To the extent of the property inherited from the network B to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant (Appointed Party) is 16,659,844 won and 16,659.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 49,979,533 of the principal and interest of a loan granted by the Ganyang Agricultural Cooperative.

B. The agreed interest rate of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity is 15% per annum for the claim for indemnity accrued after June 14, 2004, and 12% per annum for the claim for indemnity accrued after December 16, 2012.

C. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties are the deceased’s successors, and the amount of the obligation inherited as at the time of the Plaintiff’s subrogation is KRW 11,106,562, respectively.

On October 24, 2016, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties were adjudicated to accept a report of inheritance limited recognition from the resident support of the Daegu Family Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 16,659,844 won per annum, the Defendant (Appointed Party) to the extent of the deceased’s property inherited from the deceased, the 11,106,562 won per annum, the agreement rate of 15% per annum, from May 14, 2007 to December 16, 2012, and the next day to the delivery date of the original payment order (the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party E: July 25, 2017; 12% per annum, the agreement rate of 15% per annum, and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment until the date of full payment).

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.