logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.04.06 2017나6372
약속어음금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2009, the date of issue of February 23, 2009, 9,000 won at face value, Busan Metropolitan City at the place of payment, and Promissory Notes with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”). On the same day, if the network E and F delayed the payment of the said Promissory Notes, a notarial deed was drawn up to the effect that a notary public does not raise any objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution (No. 226, 2009, a notary public, who was a law firm, was a notary public).

B. The Plaintiff is holding the bill of this case.

C. On the other hand, the deceased on November 20, 2009, and the deceased on November 20, 2009, there were Defendant C and D, the spouse of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, as the inheritors of the issuer network E of the bill of this case, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the face value of the bill of this case 9,000,000 won and delay damages in accordance with the Defendants’ respective inheritance shares.

Therefore, the defendants' defense that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because they renounced the deceased E's inheritance. Thus, in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement No. 1 of this case, the defendants filed a declaration of renunciation of inheritance with the Changwon District Court 2009Ra1566 on November 26, 2009 and filed a judgment to accept it on December 18, 2009. Thus, the defendants' defense is justified.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the Defendants inherited the net E's property is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow