January 13, 2017

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants pay to the Plaintiff 31,181,452 won and 12,600,000 won among them, 30% per annum from June 8, 2012 to the date of full payment, and 15,051,00 won per annum from September 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.

A. On September 14, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 63,000,000 to Nonparty 1, the deceased Nonparty 1, respectively, at the rate of 30% per annum until September 14, 2012.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff lent KRW 75,255,00 to the above Nonparty 1 during the period from November 9, 2010 to August 30, 2012.

C. The foregoing Nonparty 1 paid KRW 15,125,00, out of the interest of KRW 32,777,260 until June 7, 2012, to the Plaintiff regarding the obligation under the foregoing paragraph (a) from December 17, 2010 to June 7, 2012.

D. On November 22, 2014, Nonparty 1, who was assaulted by ○○○ and Nonparty 5, was killed by ○○○ and Nonparty 4. At the time, Nonparty 1 was in a state of non-Marriage 1 was not married, did not have any child, and all parents of Nonparty 1 had already died. The Defendants are siblings of Nonparty 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, the successors of Nonparty 1, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s debt to the Plaintiff according to their respective inheritance shares, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. Partial reimbursement

The Defendants asserted that, with respect to the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 63,00,000 on September 14, 2010 against the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1 transferred the business right to the Music Hall located in the former city’s (location omitted) before his birth in accord with the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Qualified acceptance

The Defendants asserted that the qualified acceptance was made in relation to the inheritance of Nonparty 1. Thus, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Defendants filed a request for the qualified acceptance as to the inheritance of Nonparty 1 with the Jeonju District Court 2015 Madan5087, in relation to the inheritance of the above Nonparty 1, and Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 accepted the above qualified acceptance declaration as to March 31, 2016, respectively. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 accepted the above qualified acceptance declaration as to October 28, 2016. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the obligation inherited from the above Nonparty 1 only within the scope of active property inherited from Nonparty 1. Thus, the defendants' defense pointing this out is with merit.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, prior to the acceptance of the above report on qualified acceptance, the Defendants conducted an act of disposal on the claim for compensation for tort inherited from Nonparty 1, such as receiving the repayment amount with respect to the claim for compensation for tort inherited from the above Nonparty 1, so the above report on qualified acceptance is invalid and simple approval is deemed to have been made. Accordingly, according to each description of evidence Nos. 11 through 16 (including the provisional number), around April 29, 2015, ○○○, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5 received KRW 300 million in total with the criminal agreement, including the deposit money deposited by the Defendants against the Defendants, around June 2015. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on the fact that the receipt of the above money was an act of disposal on the claim for compensation for tort damages inherited from the above Nonparty 1 is insufficient to acknowledge it as to the claim for compensation for damages from Nonparty 1, 4, and Nonparty 5’s disposal of the above claim for compensation for damages from Nonparty 1.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, within the scope of the property inherited from the above non-party 1, the Defendants: 31,181,452 won [[(63,00,000 won + 75,25,000 won + 32,777,260 won - 15,125,000 won] x 12,600,000 won [63,000,000 x 1/5]] and 15,000 interest rate of 30% per annum from June 8, 2012 to 20.5% per annum; 25% per annum from the day following the above non-party 1 to the day of full payment; 30% per annum of interest rate of 15% per annum from the day following the above non-party 2 to the day of full payment; 1.5% per annum of interest rate of 25% per annum from September 1, 2015 to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified within the scope of each recognition as above, and each remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Yong-soo