대여금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B and C shall not exceed 12,000,000 won, respectively, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E.
1. The following facts are acknowledged between the Plaintiff, Defendant B and C by the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Eul evidence No. 2, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant D.
Defendant B and C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”) are the successors of the deceased E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) (the shares in inheritance are 1/2 each), and Defendant D is the birth of the deceased.
B. Defendant B, etc. filed a petition for a trial on the limited acceptance of inheritance with the original Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Ra104, and the said court accepted the report of the qualified acceptance on April 3, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On March 28, 2014, Defendant D loaned KRW 24 million to the Deceased, Defendant D, etc., and asserted that the Deceased promised to repay KRW 30 million, and filed a lawsuit seeking payment of said money as the Seoul District Court’s Jeju Branch Branch Branch Branch of 2014Kadan2609.
On January 22, 2015, there is no evidence to support that Defendant D lent money to the Deceased. Rather, the Plaintiff dismissed the said claim on the ground that the Plaintiff directly lent KRW 24,00,000 to the Deceased upon Defendant D’s request (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B, etc.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 21, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 24,000,000 to the Deceased (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(1) At the time, the loan certificate No. 1 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was drawn up
(2) In the previous lawsuit claiming Defendant B, etc., it is difficult to recognize the authenticity of the loan of this case, such as the fact that Defendant D alleged that he lent to the deceased, and that the seal imprint affixed on the loan of this case is different from that of the deceased’s seal imprint, and that there is no participation in the preparation of the deceased, etc., and that the deceased’s seal imprinted on the loan of this case.